Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o' Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL (By Order)

ROCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSFER OF QUESTIONS

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

MR. DAVID LOGAN: To ask the Minister of Labour, if he is aware that Mr. John Bennett, out on licence from the Calderstone Institution, sought employment at Renshaw Street Employment Exchange, Liverpool; that he was informed that he was eligible for National Service, and after medical examination was graded A1; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Logan: I wish to ask a question on a point of procedure, Mr. Speaker. I put down a Question to the Secretary of State for War and it has been transferred to the Minister of Labour. As it is a matter of public importance, and I think I was correct in putting it down to the Secretary of State for War, I want to know from you, Mr. Speaker, if a Department has the right, on a matter which concerns that Department, to transfer a Question to another Department. If so, shall I have the power to transfer this Question to the Secretary of State for War for him to give me an answer why a mental case should be taken into the Army?

Mr. Speaker: It is customary for Ministers to transfer Questions addressed

to them which involve the responsibility of another Department. It is done by Ministers and not by me. Which is the hon. Member's Question?

Mr. Logan: Question No. 83.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member will take my advice and wait to see what answer he gets and, if it is unsatisfactory, return to the matter.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Is it in order for a Minister to transfer a Question to another Minister but answer the very same Question put by another hon. Member? I put a Question to the President of the Board of Trade asking for a statement on the Purchase Tax utility scheme and it was transferred by him to the Chancellor of the Exchequer but at the same time he answered a similar Question put to him by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser).

Mr. Speaker: That, again, is a matter for Ministers. It sounds a strange transaction as the hon. Lady puts it. If she gives me particulars, I will look into it.

Mr. Logan: My point is that the whole thing is a farce and that the Minister can escape the responsibility of a Question which legitimately belongs to his Department, and I reckon that an hon. Member ought to have the right to maintain his position and have the responsible Minister answering. The Ministry of Labour have nothing to do with lunatics.

Mr. Speaker: It is a fundamental rule that Questions must relate to the responsibility of the Minister who is interrogated, and when one Minister transfers a Question to another Minister and that other Minister accepts it, there must be agreement between the two Ministers that the Question falls within the responsibility of the latter rather than of the former.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is a very important matter. Surely no Minister has the right to transfer an hon. Member's Question to another Minister without the consent of that hon. Member, especially when it results in the hon. Member's Question being postponed?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister has that right to transfer.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Development Corporations

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the reasons for dismissing Mr. F. C. Jobson and Mr. M. Auliff from their membership of the Basildon, Essex, Development Corporation; and whether he will give a list of dismissals from similar corporations since October, 1951.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): No one has been dismissed from membership of any new town corporation since October, 1951. These gentlemen were not reappointed after the expiry of their term of office.

Mr. Lewis: Could the Minister answer the Question by telling me those who have not been re-appointed—the list of people—and confirm whether or not there are others than those mentioned in the Question?

Mr. Macmillan: If the hon. Member will put down a Question, I will certainly circulate the answer in detail, but I should like to emphasise that members are appointed for a limited period and it is very unfair to the individuals concerned to suggest that because that they may not be re-appointed they have therefore been dismissed.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Is it not strange that in the majority of cases those who have not been re-appointed have been members of the Labour Party?

Mr. Macmillan: But it is not the fact. For instance, I do not regard Lord Beveridge as a member of the Labour Party. He did not wish to continue at Peterlee and in that case I appointed a very distinguished member of the Labour Party to be chairman of that corporation.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why the service of the Acton member of the Hemel Hempstead Development Corporation has been terminated; and what steps he is taking to safeguard the needs of the borough of Acton in the development policy of that corporation.

Mr. H. Macmillan: In reply to the first part of the Question, I would refer to the Answer I have given to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis). In reply to the second part of

the Question, development corporations are not constituted on a representative basis, but I am confident from recent discussions with the corporation that they will not overlook the needs of the Borough of Acton.

Mr. Sparks: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he displaced the Acton member of this corporation, and whether he will consider appointing another member of Acton Borough Council, if necessary, in place of the one displaced, on account of the interest of the Borough of Acton in the new town of Hemel Hempstead?

Mr. Macmillan: Of course, the rest of London is also interested in this new town.

Gas Holder, Farnworth

Mr. George Tomlinson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) if he is aware that the proposal to erect a 100-foot gas holder in the centre of Farnworth contravenes every principle of town planning; and if he will, therefore, review the decision to allow it.
(2) on what grounds the decision to allow the erection of the 100-foot gas holder in the centre of the borough of Farnworth was taken.
(3) whether he has considered a communication from the Farnworth Borough Council protesting against his decision to allow the erection of a 100-foot gas holder in the centre of the town; and what reply he has sent to the communication.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The decision to allow a 100-foot gas holder in Farnworth was taken by the county council as local planning authority. They were influenced, I understand, by the fact that there is already a 50-foot gas holder on this site and that to keep the new one down nearer to the height of the existing one would involve considerable expenditure of money and materials. I would not feel justified in reversing this decision which was taken more than two years ago, and I am writing accordingly to the borough council, from whom I have heard. I am sending the right hon. Gentleman a copy of my letter.

Mr. Tomlinson: Is the Minister aware that this holder is sited within 50 yards of the town hall, will dominate the centre


of the town and render any question of the re-development of that part of the town impossible if it is erected?

Mr. Macmillan: I quite appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's feelings. I understand them, but in this case, where the planning authority gave its consent, and where such a very heavy additional cost in materials and labour would be concerned in altering that decision, I do not think it my duty as Minister to interfere.

Mr. Tomlinson: Is the Minister also aware that every official associated with town planning, either locally or on the part of the authority itself, has condemned the scheme, and only the Tory-dominated planning committee of the county council is insisting upon it?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to make that imputation, nor do I feel the difference between the existing stack of one height and another makes as much difference as all that.

Mr. Tomlinson: Why has the Minister gone back on a decision of the previous Minister at least to reduce the height of this holder by 25 feet? Does he consider that 100 feet of ugliness is better than 75 feet?

Mr. Macmillan: I did not think that a reduction of 25 feet was worth £50,000 and the 270 tons of additional steel and 440 tons of additional cast iron which would be needed to build at the alternative height.

Mr. Tomlinson: Are we to take it that in future no industrial town that was built without planning years ago is to derive any advantage from town planning today?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir.

Dartmoor Park Committee

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in view of undertakings given, why he consulted the Devon County Council before making his national appointments to the Dartmoor Park Committee.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Because I thought it the proper thing to do.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in addition to the

two-thirds representation on the local committee which the local authorities already have, this decision of the right hon. Gentleman means that the local authorities are also to select the remaining one-third?

Mr. Macmillan: Everybody is agreed on this system. It seems to work very well. The important thing is that the people running the National Park and the people in the county where the National Park lies should get on amicably together, and that they will do.

Development Plans (Military Information)

Brigadier R. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that the development plans which are being prepared under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, contain detail as to the situation of battle areas, Army, Navy and Air Force buildings, railway junctions and marshalling yards, docks and wharves and important industrial buildings; that these plans would be of assistance to any enemy in the event of war; and whether he has consulted with the Minister of Defence on the security aspects of the matter and on the steps to be taken to prevent copies of these plans becoming available to any potential enemy.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Yes, Sir. Measures have been taken, in consultation with Defence Departments, to ensure that these plans do not contain matter which ought not to be disclosed.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is not it a fact that conditions have changed considerably since the security arrangements were laid down in the Ordnance Survey and that these maps, read in conjunction with Circular 92 issued by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, would give a potential enemy a picture more complete than could be obtained by air reconnaissance?

Mr. Macmillan: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for calling my attention to this matter. I think that the fact that this Question has been put will call the attention of the Defence Departments to it, and I shall see that this matter is looked into.

Derating

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in order to increase the income of local authorities, he will take steps to terminate the derating of industrial hereditaments and agricultural land.

Mr. H. Macmillan: This proposal raises large issues and will require the exploration of long avenues and the turning over of many stones.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The Government having now added considerably to the financial burden of all local authorities have introduced a new factor into the situation. Will the Minister see, therefore, that wealthy industrialists and landowners are no longer subsidised at the expense of less fortunate ratepayers? In Burton, for example, one firm costs the local rate fund far more than it ever pays in.

Blitzed Cities (Reconstruction)

Mr. Michael Foot: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the allocation under the capital investment programme for reconstruction in bombed cities during the year 1951; and the comparable figure proposed for the year 1952.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The allocation for 1951 was £4½ million. As regards the second part of the Question, the capital allocation for 1952 will be settled from time to time in accordance with the steel available.

Mr. Foot: Even if the actual figures of the capital investment programme have not been fixed for this year, is it not a fact that, in effect, there has been a severe reduction, and, if that is not the case, how can the right hon. Gentleman explain some of the answers which he has been giving to the local authorities on this matter?

Mr. Macmillan: We are now at the beginning of March, four weeks after the steel allocation came into being, and I am hopeful that, before the end of the year, we shall be able to make further progress in the work in which the hon. Gentleman and others are so much interested, but I do not want to tie myself to a capital investment programme, which might be hampering rather than helping.

Mr. Foot: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, if the blitzed cities are to plan their work, it is highly desirable to have this information several months ahead, and that, if he now says, as he did in the House last week, that we are not going to know the total amount until the end of the year, he will be holding up the whole reconstruction of blitzed cities?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think there will be any difficulty of their taking delivery, if I can get them the steel.

Mr. Foot: As the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry has been inviting development in the blitzed cities and has been preparing plans whereby they will use much less steel, does he not realise that the whole of that proposal will be useless unless they are guaranteed in advance that they will be able to get licences under the capital investment programme?

Plymouth Library (Rebuilding)

Mr. Michael Foot: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the most recent date on which a proposal for rebuilding the Plymouth Library was turned down by Her Majesty's Government; the cost involved; and the grounds for the Government's decision.

Mr. H. Macmillan: A scheme, estimated to cost £33,000, was turned down on 19th October, 1951, seven days before I took office, because it would have used building resources which are needed for more essential work.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Under-Secretary on this matter, because I think the Under-Secretary was misinformed on the subject, and probably the Minister is misinformed as well? Will he tell us whether he will be prepared to grant these licences now if, in fact, the steel can be secured from the old buildings amongst the blitzed parts?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman is rather pressing at an open door, for I am not, either by inclination or interest, allergic to libraries.

Highgate Common, Enville

Mr. James Simmons: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he has considered the resolution


passed at a conference of a large number of West Midland local authorities, a copy of which has been sent to him, protesting against the proposal of the Forestry Commission to utilise the whole of Highgate Common, Enville, for afforestation purposes with the exception of 10 acres; and if he will refuse his planning authority for this project.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The resolution only reached me on the 1st March, and I am making inquiries.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this particularly beautiful area is a source of much pleasure for recreational purposes for all industrial workers in the West Midland towns, and would he, therefore, study the amenity aspect very closely before allowing the Forestry Commission to take it?

New Town, Bucks (Flooding)

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he has taken on resolutions adopted and sent to him by the Buckinghamshire County Council expressing the opinion that the cost of works necessary to prevent flooding of streams and rivers due to the discharge of storm water or sewage effluent from a new town are directly attributable to its development and that the whole cost should be a charge on national funds and disapproving of the proposal that the question should be referred to the joint arbitration of two Government Departments having a direct interest in the outcome of such arbitration.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The Thames Conservancy and the development corporation have agreed to submit the matters in dispute to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture and myself, and I cannot, therefore, at this stage, express views on the merits of the resolution referred to.

Mr. Brockway: Does the Minister think it fair that two Government Departments whose interests are involved in this dispute should be the arbitration authorities?

Mr. Macmillan: I am not really so interested as all that. I think we could probably give as fair an arbitration as any other two men.

Salford City Council

Mr. F. J. Erroll: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he has considered the report of serious mismanagement by the Salford City Council, details of which have been sent him; and if he will take steps under Section 6 of the Local Government Act, 1948, to reduce the Exchequer grant to this council until the matter has been rectified.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I am advised that this matter does not come within the scope of my powers under Section 6 of the Act.

Mr. Erroll: In that event, will not the Minister take some steps to try to end a scandalous mismanagement by the Socialist-dominated city council?

Mr. Charles Royle: Will the right hon. Gentleman say exactly what this serious mismanagement is supposed to be rather than leave it to a nasty imputation by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll)? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is an example of the capacity of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale for butting in on matters that do not concern him?

Mr. Macmillan: I have seen some reference to this trouble, but I have answered the Question. I do not think that even if these allegations were correct or were absolutely true—[HON. MEMBERS: "What allegations?"] They have been referred to me. I simply say that Section 6 is intended to apply to very serious matters indeed, and I could not think it proper even to consider using it.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister says he has no control at all over this matter, how this Question comes to be on the Order Paper when hon. Members on other occasions have tried to put down questions with regard to local government and have been told that because the Minister has no responsibility the questions cannot appear on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: I see the hon. Lady's point. But the Question asks the Minister "if he will take steps under Section 6 of the Local Government Act." The Minister's answer, if I followed it aright,


was in the negative because he did not think Section 6 applied to this sort if case.

Mrs. Braddock: The Minister said that it was already known that he had no powers under Section 6. Is not that sufficient reason for the Question not appearing on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the Minister can elucidate the matter further.

Mr. Erroll: Does the Minister dismiss as mere allegations the report by the City Treasurer of Salford of serious mismanagement of a financial nature in the council?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. The advice have given in reply to the Question is that I could not proceed under Section 6 of this Act.

Mrs. Braddock: Then the Question has no right to be on the Order Paper.

Mr. Royle: Could we have the assurance of the Minister that he does not regard this report as containing allegations of serious mismanagement?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think it would benefit the position if I were drawn into a matter on which I have been advised that, although I have these powers, it would not be suitable for me to use them.

Reform

Mr. W. J. Field: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will recommend the establishment of a Royal Commission to consider the reform of local government in England and Wales and to make proposals.

Mr. H. Macmillan: No, Sir.

Mr. Field: Is the Minister aware that the local government associations have been negotiating among themselves on this matter for some considerable time without appreciable result, and does not he think the best way to deal with the matter would be for all interested bodies, including the associations, to present their evidence on this important matter to the body I have suggested?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think it would. We had six years of the previous Administration, we had the Boundary

Commission which operated until it was abolished, and I do not see much object in having a Royal Commission now. Quite a lot of information exists about this subject, and if we are able to reach a decision and produce legislation we shall do so. I do not think that the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman would help at this stage, and there is nothing worse than the attitude of sending things to a Royal Commission in the hope that nobody will ever do anything about them.

Mr. Field: Is not the Minister aware that this long delay is having a very bad effect on local government, and will he not make up his mind at long last?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think the delay can be laid at my door.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Requisitioning

Mr. Peter Remnant: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to return requisitioned premises to owners requiring them for their own residential occupation, if they are prepared to agree to a stipulated period before change of occupation.

Mr. F. Beswick: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when his policy to refuse permission for local authorities to requisition vacant property was decided.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The action which I have taken on requisitioning is indicated in a circular which I issued to local authorities on 19th February, of which I am sending copies to the hon. Members.

Mr. Remnant: While I am not aware of the contents of the circular, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he appreciates that as far as I am aware any action by the local authority is dependent on agreement between the owner and occupier as to what can be regarded as suitable alternative accommodation, and would he perhaps consider giving power to the local authority to decide what is or is not suitable alternative accommodation?

Mr. Macmillan: We are doing what we can to secure both the rights of the owners and the meeting of the needs of housing.

The following Question stood on the Order Paper:

Mr. GEORGE CHETWYND: To ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities have applied to him for permission to purchase or requisition owner-occupied dwellings for the purpose of rehousing the occupants in smaller houses and replacing them with tenants from the local authority housing lists; how many houses were involved; and in how many cases was permission granted.

Mr. Chetwynd: On a point of order. May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a misprint in the Question, which probably wrecks its meaning. For "owner-occupied" the right hon. Gentleman should read "under-occupied." If he cannot answer the Question in that form, may I withdraw the Question?

Mr. Macmillan: Perhaps I may give the hon. Gentleman the answer, and we might get together and see what we might make of this. The answer is:
My Ministry has no record of any such case.

Viceroy Court, St. Marylebone

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that the block of flats Viceroy Court in St. Marylebone remains empty because of failure to settle up dilapidation damages caused by Government occupation; and if he will take steps to expedite this, in view of the delay and the urgent need for accommodation in St. Marylebone.

Mr. H. Macmillan: No, Sir. I understand that all claims outstanding in respect of the requisitioning of these flats by the Air Ministry have been settled.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: Is the Minister aware that this block of flats, which contains a considerable number of separate flats, was derequisitioned 18 months ago in order to make more housing accommodation available, and is it not now time that this accommodation was made available?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir, but the question this time was whether some blame was attached to a Ministry of which both the right hon. and learned Gentleman and

I have very happy memories. I was trying to point out in reply that the Air Ministry were not to blame in this matter.

Labour Scarcity

Mr. Cyril Bence: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to improve the rate of housing in those districts where building labour is most difficult to obtain.

Mr. H. Macmillan: In districts where building labour is scarce, and indeed elsewhere, I am encouraging building by so-called "non-traditional" methods. This will supplement the maximum attainable production of traditional houses. Several well-proven types are available in a variety of designs at about the same cost as ordinary brick built houses. They save man-hours on the site and so can be put up more quickly. I will send the hon. Member a copy of a circular I am addressing to all local housing authorities on the subject in a day or two.

Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that already there is growing evidence that in many parts of the country there is a movement of labour and raw materials to residential areas for houses to be built for sale to the detriment of local authorities and contractors to local authorities who cannot get labour or raw materials?

Mr. Macmillan: That is not my information.

Rent Restriction Acts

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he intends introducing his promised amending legislation of the Rent Restriction Acts; and to give an assurance that it will deal with the anomalies associated with the tied house and cottage problem.

Mr. H. Macmillan: As far as I can remember, I have never promised to introduce legislation, but to review the problem. In the light of this review, a decision will be taken by the Government as to whether legislation is required and if so what it should be. It will cover the whole of the subject.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister give an assurance in respect of the last part of the Question? Will it or will it not deal with the tied cottage and house problem?

Mr. Macmillan: The review will deal with every aspect of the subject.

Subsidy (Interest Rate Increase)

Mr. Douglas Jay: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether the recent increases in the rate of interest on housing loans from the Public Works Loan Board, will be met wholly out of higher subsidies from the Exchequer, or partly out of local rates.

Mr. Charles Pannell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the offer made and the result of his negotiations with the local authority associations on the subject of the housing subsidy; and whether his offer to them completely compensates for the rise in interest rates on the whole amount of the Exchequer and local subsidy.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the estimated cost to his Department of implementing his promise that the increase in the housing subsidies will be sufficient to cover the whole of the increased costs to local housing authorities arising from the new interest rates.

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the new rate of subsidy for houses built by local authorities; and whether this will involve an increase in the subsidy payable from local rates.

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on the results of his conversations with representatives of local authorities concerning the increased subsidy for housing purposes.

Mr. Norman Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government now to inform the House concerning his discussions with the local authorities about housing subsidies.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) on 28th February.

Mr. Jay: Can the Minister explain why he gave a misleading answer and, even if he had been having a very fierce quarrel with the Treasury, would it not have given rather less blatant advertisement to the confusion in the Government on this subject if he had given the correct answer the first time?

Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman makes this imputation against me. I gave no misleading answer. Why should I? I have been a long time in this House and I have never been accused previously of giving a misleading answer.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Thomas: In view of the fact that the Minister's previous answer to the House indicated that local authorities would be completely covered in respect of the increased interest, will he now either apologise or make his position clear?

Mr. Macmillan: I thought it was rather for the right hon. Gentleman to apologise, but I will try to make my position clear if hon. Members will study the figures which were given; they are complete, if somewhat complicated.
The subsidy structure covers a wide range and, so far as I know, "housing subsidy" has always, since introduced in 1945, meant a payment to support the rent structure, of which three-quarters has always been paid by the Exchequer and a quarter by the rates. I used the term "housing subsidy" in that sense; that is the common form of it. I observe that I have been very much blamed in other quarters for having been so generous. What has really happened is that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are annoyed at having been deprived of a grievance.

Mr. Pannell: While I acquit the Minister of any desire to mislead the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—I can only speak for myself—I would ask him if he is aware that his answer did convey the impression that the local authorities would be entirely reimbursed? May I refer the Minister to his answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle - upon - Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), which appears in c. 26 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 19th February? I will read the answer in which—

Mr. Speaker: This is getting much too long for a supplementary question.

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman has been very courteous in the way be has put his supplementary question. If there has been any misunderstanding, I am sorry, but I have always understood


the expression to mean a payment, three-quarters of which was paid by the Exchequer and a quarter by the local authority. That, at any rate, is what it does now clearly mean. I would add that I think no one who wants to see the strengthening of local government would ever like a system in which 100 per cent. subsidies were paid.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increased housing subsidy, so far as it falls locally, will mean a 2d. rate in the City of Nottingham, and can he say how that helps the nation's balance of payment by transferring money from the pockets of the ratepayers to those of the bankers?

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that in Question No. 11 I have quoted the actual reply to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) and in that the Minister did say there would be no increase in the local rates? Can he explain this?

Mr. Macmillan: If there was any difficulty about hon. Members understanding what I intended to say or did say, the matter is all now settled, so that I do not see that the point arises.

Mr. Hynd: May I further ask the Minister to recall the reply he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith), who particularly asked:
Will the Minister bear in mind that there is grave anxiety among the local authorities lest any increase in the subsidy should not be sufficient to off-set the extra cost of borrowing…
to which the Minister replied:
…if that be their anxiety I can allay it immediately."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 19th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 26.]
We took that as a promise that the value of the subsidy would cover the whole cost.

Mr. Macmillan: No local authority has ever asked for this. I have met them all. Nobody has ever raised this or doubted what they have always known, that a quarter lay upon the rates. I still think that hon. Gentlemen opposite are annoyed at being deprived of their grievance—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter must be pursued some other time.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Hynd: On a point of order, I understood the Minister to say, he said it rather quickly, that he was also answering Question No. 22. If he did, may I ask him—

Mr. Speaker: No.

Timber Houses

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether his attention has been drawn to the timber houses now being built by the Forestry Division of the Eireann Government for their forest workers; and whether he will arrange to obtain examples of these houses from the Eireann Government for erection in this country as an experiment.

Mr. H. Macmillan: We know the potentialities of timber houses, but with the present need to restrict imports I would not feel justified in encouraging their use.

Mr. Vane: In view of the claims for the rapid method employed in erecting these houses and also their low cost, does the right hon. Gentleman consider this experiment is worth while, particularly as no dollar currency is involved?

Mr. Macmillan: It is not only, alas, a question of dollar currency. What I have to try to do, and I admit that the balance changes from time to time and from month to month, is to try to get the maximum out of what we must import, and I think that for the moment I would rather get this timber in a form in which we can use it for other houses, whether of conventional or non-conventional type.

Local Authorities (Steel Allocation)

Mr. Stephen Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how much steel he is allocating to local authorities for all purposes in the first quarter of 1952.

Mr. H. Macmillan: It is not the practice to publish information about steel allocations.

Mr. Swingler: Why is the Minister so reluctant to give this information? How can Parliament form a judgment on his policy if we are denied this vital information?

Mr. Macmillan: It is the practice followed by all Governments with regard to the allocation system. I think the hon. Member and others will realise that it would be extremely difficult to operate the allocation system, either centrally or departmentally, if we had to give detailed replies as to their allocations.

Building Standards

Mr. S. S. Awbery: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when granting building licences, to make it a condition that the completed buildings must pass the test of a qualified building inspector when they are ready for occupation.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Local authorities by whom licences are issued are asked already to exercise supervision equivalent to that laid down in the scheme of the National House Builders Registration Council.

Mr. Awbery: May I ask what further steps the Minister is taking to protect the tenant or prospective owner from jerry builders, and to see that the right materials are used and that the right kind of house is built?

Mr. Macmillan: The byelaws cover this to some extent, and the growth and authority of the National House Builders Registration Council has, I think, filled up any gaps which remain.

Mr. Speaker: Lieut.-Colonel Lipton, Question No. 19.

Mr. F. Beswick: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's Question No. 18 was answered with Question No. 2. The hon. Member was not present.

Mr. Beswick: As you have quite rightly said, Mr. Speaker, I was not in the House when my Question was answered with Question No. 2. May I ask—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have order on a point of order.

Mr. Beswick: May I ask if it is not necessary to get my permission to answer that Question with another Question and who gave that permission in my absence?

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member was not here, neither his permission nor his denial of permission could have been ascertained. It is quite usual for Questions to be answered together.

Mr. Beswick: Is it not necessary for permission to be granted, and therefore is it in order for the Question to be answered when that permission has not been given?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member is present in the House he can say that he does not want his Question answered with another, but if he is not here he has no remedy.

Private Building

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities have given private building licences on the maximum permitted basis of one for each house built by the council.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I regret that the information is not available. Time will show.

Mr. Hynd: If the Minister has not got the actual figures, is he aware that, despite the hope he expressed that very few local authorities would adopt the 50–50 basis, some of the more reactionary local authorities, like that of Hornsey, have gone to the limit, and even beyond the limit, because they are now giving the full amount of private licences in anticipation of what they may be able to build as council houses?

Mr. Macmillan: I have not got the information, and will not get it in this form for some time.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what changes he has made in the allocation of building licences for Cardiff as compared with the allocations for 1949, 1950 and 1951.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I assume the hon. Member has in mind the issue of licences for the building of new houses by private persons. Allocations of such licences are not made by me, but are determined by


the housing authority within the permissible ratio of their housing programme. The numbers of licences issued by the city council in 1949, 1950 and 1951 were 316, 104 and 203, respectively. I understand that the council have still to reach a final decision as to the number of licences they will issue in 1952, but to date they have issued licences for 300 houses.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities have increased the proportion of private building licences; and how many have submitted proposals for the sale of council houses since October, 1951.

Mr. H. Macmillan: As regards the first part of the Question, I regret that the information is not available. Time will show. As regards the second part, a considerable number of local authorities have made inquiries, but I am preparing to issue a circular on this subject shortly.

Mr. Blenkinsop: How can the right hon. Gentleman carry out the undertaking which he gave to maintain the full level of houses to be available for letting if he does not have the full information before him?

Mr. Macmillan: That is another question. This is a question of the sale of houses, on which I said I would issue a Circular.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The first part of the Question asked if there had been any change in the proportion of houses to be sold to the general public on private licence, and that, obviously, must affect the number of houses available for letting.

Mr. Macmillan: I will see how it works out. I think I shall not be far wrong.

Loans and Interest

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the amount of loan taken up by local authorities from the Public Works Loan Board for housing purposes since 7th November, 1951; the estimated annual increase in total amount of interest repayments above the rate of 3 per cent. and the increased cost per average dwelling disregarding all subsidies.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The amount up to 22nd February was £49,001,111. So many

factors enter into the other parts of the Question that I regret no useful estimate can be made.

Mr. Sparks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very substantial part of this increase must fall on the local rates, and must also cause increases in the rent of new dwellings?

Mr. Macmillan: This is a problem which, with the best will in the world, the experts in my Department could not readily solve, because there are too many unknowns in respect of such a large variety of things as the purchase of land for the future, draining and all kinds of things. It is impossible to produce the reply for which the hon. Gentleman asked, and, therefore, I gave him the best answer I could.

Builders' Contracts (Stoppages)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how far he has approved housing contracts providing that local authorities shall refund out-of-pocket expenses incurred by builders when shortage of steel causes stoppage of work.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The forms of contract used by housing authorities are not subject to my approval.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Has the Minister any official statement to make upon what seems to be the growing practice of building firms requiring the inclusion of such a clause in building contracts?

Mr. Macmillan: Such information as I am getting upon these matters suggests that they are being settled fairly amicably between the contractors and those who place the contracts.

Wales

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the number of houses he anticipates will be built in Wales during 1952–53.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I shall not tempt fortune by hazarding a guess. We shall do our best, and I know we have the good wishes of the hon. Member. Meanwhile, detailed information about actual progress at various stages of the housing programme is contained in the published returns.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that, while he naturally has my good wishes in this regard, his answer leaves me without any idea of his target for Wales for the forthcoming year? May I ask him if he has a definite figure in mind with regard to housing in Wales?

Mr. Macmillan: I am not obliged to impart to the hon. Gentleman the gift of prophecy which I have not got myself.

Approvals and Completions

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why the rate of dwellings completed and the number of dwellings in local authority schemes approved by him since 7th November, 1951, has fallen.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The hon. Member is quite wrong. More houses were completed in the three months ended 31st January, 1952, and more were included in tenders approved in that period, than in the corresponding period a year ago.

Mr. Sparks: Will the right hon. Gentleman then explain the figures which appear in the latest Housing Summary, dated 31st January, which shows that the rate of completions is lower than for the past three months, and is now running at an annual rate of 188,000 a year?

Mr. Macmillan: I think the hon. Gentleman has mis-read the figures. The precise figure for the period was 40,000 in the one case, and nearly 46,000 in the other. In the numbers of tenders approved, the figure was 41,000 rising to 46,000.

Mr. Sparks: That does not apply to the original licence.

Mr. Macmillan: The first figure I gave was of completions, and the second related to tenders.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Building Materials

Mr. Frederick Mulley: asked the Minister of Works which controls he proposes to remove in order to secure an expansion of building materials and equipment.

The Minister of Works (Mr. David Eccles): I presume the hon. Member refers to my request to brick manufacturers for information regarding controls on the building industry in general. These controls are operated by a number of Departments. So far as my Ministry is concerned, price-controls and licensing are the main controls. I am considering whether price-control can be removed. Licensing is being reviewed to see whether it can be simplified.

Mr. Mulley: Will the Minister let us know more clearly whether in his view the ordinary physical controls over buildings have any direct relation to the building materials industry? Will he not really apply himself to the job of trying to expand building materials, which at the present as in the past have held up building which we all want, instead of relying on these rather vague and doctrinaire phrases when he addresses himself to the subject in public?

Mr. Eccles: The hon. Gentleman will find that the output of building materials is increasing very satisfactorily.

Housing Fitments

Mr. Mulley: asked the Minister of Works how many firms manufacturing housing fitments have received cuts in their iron and steel allocations, as compared with their consumption in 1951; and what is the estimated reduction in the supply in the current year, as compared with 1951, of fitments which require iron and steel for their manufacture.

Mr. Eccles: My Department is responsible for the allocation of steel to 1,170 firms making housing fitments and all have received a reduced allocation as compared with 1951. But I hope that, including those made of substitute materials, there will be sufficient fitments for the house building programme.

Mr. Mulley: Will the Minister take all possible steps to control the reduction in allocations in order to enable firms to switch over steadily from this work to defence work instead of by sudden cuts which mean that the working forces of these firms which will be needed when the position improves are dismissed?

Mr. Eccles: I am watching that position.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Works what consideration he has given to the relative merits of sheet-steel and cast-iron for the manufacture of gutters, drain and soil-pipes, baths and cookers for the housing programme; and what is the policy of his Department in regard to the substitution of sheet-steel for cast-iron in respect of such housing requisites.

Mr. Eccles: I am aware of the saving in ferrous metal which theoretically can be obtained by substituting pressed steel for cast-iron. There are, however, certain drawbacks. The steel product is not always so satisfactory in use as cast-iron. There is a shortage of zinc for galvanising. There is no surplus of steel sheet, and in some cases retooling would be involved. I cannot risk any shortage of fitments for building, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that I shall continue to watch the matter closely and secure economies where those are practicable.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the very satisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, may I ask whether he would take steps to bring the technicalities of this matter to the notice of certain steel makers who are endeavouring, quite ill-advisedly, to substitute sheet-steel for cast-iron in these essential requisites for the building trade?

Mr. Eccles: I am doing it.

Dome of Discovery

Mr. C. W. Key: asked the Minister of Works the practical objections to granting the request of the London County Council that the Dome of Discovery should remain on its present site for two or three years, subject to a full technical investigation to show that its removal for use elsewhere when national conditions permit is a practical proposition.

Mr. Eccles: As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) on 26th February, whatever may be the cost and technical difficulties in re-erecting the Dome of Discovery, I am unwilling to become the caretaker of empty and deteriorating structures, more especially because the site should be cleared and put to a good purpose in time for the Coronation.

Mr. Key: What is the urgency of the development which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind on this site which makes further negotiation impracticable?

Mr. Eccles: The urgency is that we want the site cleared and laid out, possibly as a garden, in time for next year. I do not want to become the caretaker of a slum.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Is it not really a shocking waste to pull down a magnificent building and sell it for scrap when it might well be used in some other part of London for very good purposes for a very long time? Surely, it is worth while bearing the small expense of upkeep for six months or a year in order that full consideration may be given to the proper use of this building elsewhere in London?

Mr. Eccles: On 10th December, I asked the L.C.C. to give me their decision by 6th February. They then asked whether they could have until 5th March, that is, three months in which to discover the technical possibilities. I have offered to support a licence to re-erect the building now if they so wish, but I must have the site cleared.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Could not the Minister make it clear—I think I am right in saying this—that it is a practical engineering impossibility to move the Dome of Discovery to such a place as, for example, the Crystal Palace?

Mr. Eccles: The technical opinions differ on this subject, and I do not feel able to come down on either one side or the other.

Mr. Frank Bowles: Has the Minister considered using the Dome as the central air terminus in London for B.E.A. and B.O.A.C., rather like Les Invalides in Paris, which he may know?

Mr. Eccles: I do not think aircraft could land on a convex roof.

Mr. Bowles: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is being facetious. Perhaps I ought to explain to him that an air terminus is a place where passengers when travelling by air arrive or depart. In Paris there is a place called Les Invalides, which the right hon. Gentleman may at some time have to use. This would be an ideal central site for a London air terminus, and as the right hon. Gentleman has obviously given no consideration to this possibility, would he now promise to do so?

Mr. Eccles: I am in negotiation with B.E.A. for the use of the station building,


which is opposite Waterloo Station, as their new terminus. The Dome does not come into it.

British Embassy, Rio de Janeiro

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: asked the Minister of Works the original estimate of the cost of the new British Embassy in Rio de Janeiro; its final total cost; how much was paid in architects' fees; whether British or Brazilian architects were employed; and when the original expenditure was sanctioned.

Mr. Eccles: The original estimated cost of the new British Embassy at Rio de Janeiro was £150,000; its final total cost was £414,000 including architect's fees and expenses. Twenty-five thousand pounds was paid in architect's fees; a British architect practising in Rio de Janeiro was employed. The original expenditure was sanctioned in the Vote for 1945–46.

Captain Duncan: While exonerating my right hon. Friend from any responsibility, does he realise that, thanks to the erection of this very expensive building, there will be additional maintenance cost, and will he see that in his administration no such administrative extravagance is allowed?

Mr. Eccles: My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that once a building is put up we must maintain it.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER (TEMPERATURE)

Miss Elaine Burton: asked the Minister of Works if he will make arrangements for the temperature in the Chamber to be at a lower level.

Mr. Eccles: It I can be assured that it is the wish of the majority of hon. Members, I will arrange for the temperature to be lowered.

Hon. Members: No.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by a happy coincidence there is a little air in this Chamber today, which is quite different from many weeks past? May I also point out that while I believe there is quite a draught on the exalted Front Benches, it is really stuffy on the back benches? Would the right hon. Gentleman do something about it?

Mr. Ralph Assheton: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that whilst is frequently very warm in this Chamber it is frequently very cold in other parts of the Palace of Westminster, such as the Committee Rooms, and that it would be desirable to keep the temperature of the whole building at the same level if possible?

Mr. Eccles: The answer is that the radiators are turned down at night in the Committee Rooms. If my right hon. Friend has them turned up in the morning, I think he will find they get hot very quickly.

Mr. I. Mikardo: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the temperature in another place is permanently maintained at three degrees higher than in this Chamber? Will he ensure the utmost economy in the use of fuel for an establishment where more than 90 per cent. of the members are permanent absentees?

Mr. Eccles: The answer is that I have to suit the convenience of those whom I serve.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Japanese Sterling Credits

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of sterling that has accrued to Japan mainly from the sale of cotton goods to Pakistan; how far steps have been taken to reduce this liability; whether he is aware that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is seeking to obtain this sterling by sales to Japan; and to what extent his arrangements will enable it to be freely available for Soviet use.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I regret that I am not in a position to give the figures asked for in the first part of my hon. Friend's Question. Under the Anglo-Japanese Sterling Payments Agreement of 31st August, 1951, and the Exchange of Notes annexed thereto, Japan may use her sterling earnings for payments to the sterling area and also, in respect of direct current transactions, for payments to countries in the "Transferable Account Area," in which the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is included. I am aware of reports that U.S.S.R. is willing to sell certain goods to Japan for sterling under these arrangements.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sterling balances have accrued because Japan has displaced this country as the principal supplier of cotton goods to Pakistan? Could he persuade the President of the Board of Trade to announce the Government's policy in respect of Japanese competition?

Mr. Butler: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman puts a Question to the President of the Board of Trade he will get a very satisfactory answer.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: Is it not desirable that we should encourage the Soviet Union to earn sterling?

Mr. Butler: I must remind hon. Members that there is a certain trade in essentials between us and the Soviet Union and that we must expect the Soviet Union to use the sterling in some way or another.

Civil Service (Staff Reductions)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants the Government, in pursuance of its present economy drive, intends to dismiss and in what order; what will be the estimated saving to the national Exchequer; how will this saving be calculated; and what will be the amount of the co-relative loss to the national Exchequer in Unemployment Insurance, National Assistance and otherwise.

Mr. R. A. Butler: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on 19th February. The estimated saving to the Exchequer from the abolition of 10,000 posts is £5million per annum. It is calculated by reference to number of posts saved and to the average annual emoluments of civil servants. I have no reason to believe that there will be any significant loss to the Exchequer of the kind suggested in the last part of the Question.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that this is victimising a very useful section of the community in a very unfair, unjust, and perfectly futile way, and will he reconsider it?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. It has always been part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to economise where we think it reasonable and fair, and in this case I am quite satisfied that this economy has been carried out in the fairest way possible.

Overseas Forces (Gift Parcels)

Miss Burton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the widespread feeling against the high duties charged on presents from Her Majesty's Forces overseas to their families at home; and if he will look into the matter.

Mr. R. A. Butler: There is a standing concession which enables Service men to send home presents to their families free of Customs charges, but it excludes tobacco, scent and liquor and is subject to a value limit of 10s. Under this concession, which has received much publicity in the Services, large numbers of presents are passed without charge. I am afraid that it would not be possible, without risk of abuse, to exempt more expensive presents, or articles such as cigarettes and pipe tobacco which can be bought much more cheaply overseas than at home.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not referring to tobacco, scent or liquor? Might I ask him if he is aware that the mother of one of the Gloucesters recently had to pay 26s. 6d. for a table centre which had cost 8s. 6d.? Would he not agree it would cost very little to reduce these charges which are a constant source of irritation to the men's families at home?

Mr. Butler: Since the hon. Lady put the Question down, I have examined the whole matter. It appears to me that a great deal comes in through this concession. The concession applies only to one mail, and I really think we cannot extend it at the present time. If the hon. Lady is concerned about a particular case, I will look into it.

Budget Proposals (Popular Summary)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will follow the precedent of the late Government and


publish a popular illustrated summary of his Budget proposals and the effect of re-armament and economy cuts on the national life.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The question of publishing some popular account of Budget problems and measures is now under consideration, but it is too early to say definitely what can be done.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the previous Government published a very simple, interesting pamphlet called "The Budget and Your Pocket" and that it would help me to explain his Budget to the farmers in my constituency if he published a pamphlet of that kind illustrated by Low?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member had better wait till he sees what is in my Budget before he asks for that.

Captain Richard Pilkington: Would not an illustrated summary of the late Government's financial policy be an example of the worst sort of "comics"?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the Chancellor's original answer mean that he does not envisage the possibility of any popular summary of his Budget being published?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about today's business?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. After discussions which have taken place through the usual channels, it is proposed to take the Report and Third Reading of the Agriculture (Fertilisers) Bill tomorrow and not tonight. It will not, therefore, be necessary to move the Motion for the suspension of the Ten o'Clock Rule today.

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'Clock.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS TOGETHER WITH ESTIMATE FOR THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 1952–53 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Resolution [3rd March] reported:
That a sum, not exceeding £918,376,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

[For details of Vote on Account see OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1952, c 35–39.]

Resolution read a Second time.

CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION

3.32 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I beg to move, to leave out "£918,376,000," and to insert "£918,375,900."
I move this reduction because there are some questions on the proposals relating to the Central African Federation which I propose to put to the Minister, and whether we shall divide later on will depend upon his answers.
The question of the federation of the three Central African territories—Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland—has been discussed over very many years and has always proved to be a very controversial question. In 1938, a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Bledisloe, after a very full consideration of all the aspects of this very difficult problem, came to the conclusion that no scheme of closer political association put before them could be recommended. They rejected all the schemes that were put forward, in particular a scheme for the amalgamation of the three territories.
They did, however, express the view that in the future development of all these three territories there was a very strong case for seeking to ensure in some way their closer association in all matters of common interest to them and, in particular, in their economic development. They therefore urged that those responsible


for the government of those three territories should devise some machinery by which and through which co-operation in economic development might be ensured.
Eventually, some years after that recommendation had been made, the Central African Council was set up in order to ensure that in all matters of common interest and in the promotion of the economic development of the three territories there should be the closest possible co-operation. I think that all of us who have given thought to this problem are of one mind upon one thing at least; that is, that the future prosperity of these territories will be enhanced if we can ensure that their economic co-operation is as close as ever we can possibly make it.
Those who visit the territories get immediate examples which make a very strong impression. For example, there is the very important copper industry in Northern Rhodesia which depends entirely for its coal supplies upon coal found in the neighbouring territory of Southern Rhodesia at the Wankie Colliery, over 300 miles away. There is a great river which now forms the boundary between Northern and Southern Rhodesia—the Zambesi—and schemes are already beeing mooted to use the resources of that river in order to develop hydro power.
In these territories, as elsewhere in Africa, there is a very urgent need for greater economic development in order to meet the problem of the populations, which continue to increase at a steady rate. I think it is common ground that the economic co-operation of these three territories is to be desired, and that it is essential that the closest and most efficient possible machinery shall be devised to ensure that co-operation.
It was my view that much more could have been done to make the Central African Council a more effective machinery by which this co-operation might be ensured, and I did urge more than once upon those responsible in Central Africa that in the neighbouring territories of East Africa there was the example of the High Commission which, in recent years, has proved itself an effective instrument by which and through which to ensure co-operation throughout all these three great territories of East Africa.
However, it was continuously urged from Central Africa and, in particular, from Southern Rhodesia, that the Central African Council was not as effective an instrument of co-operation as the urgent need of the territories made necessary. Beyond the economic arguments, it was urged upon me that there were at that time, 1950—and I think there are now—urgent reasons for ensuring not only the closer economic association of these territories but their closer political association.
I want to say a word about these political reasons that were urged upon me. I am sure they have been urged upon the present Colonial Secretary and all those who have discussed this problem in Central Africa or in this country. I will try to use measured tones. So far, we have all talked about this with bated breath. I think the time has come to speak rather more frankly about it. The right hon. Gentleman, in the statement which he made to the House last November, used precisely the words that I have used. I am going to quote that statement because it is in the same terms as those used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and myself in this House. Indeed, they are the terms which have been used outside this country—in Central Africa. The right hon. Gentleman was referring to the Conference of officials and their report, to which we shall return in the course of this debate.
…the Conference expressed grave concern at the dangers which would flow from any weakening or dilution of the British connection and British traditions and principles in the three territories and agreed that they should be so strengthened as to ensure that they should continue to prevail."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st Nov., 1951; Vol. 494, c. 393.]
That is the political reason why it was urged that, in present-day circumstances, it was desirable to ensure, not only close economic co-operation but a closer political association of these three territories, and the Conference of officials expressed the view that this was one of the urgent reasons why it was desirable.
What is this urgent political reason? It is that there is a fear which is widespread among more than one of the races or communities in Central Africa that, unless there is created and sustained in these three territories a stronger political association, looking to this country for


its inspiration, maintaining our traditions and maintaining our principles, in the not-too-distant future other ideas, other principles, and other traditions might prevail. These are the traditions and ideas which come from the Union of South Africa.
I think the House and the country ought to know that the policy of Apartheid is casting a sinister shadow over Africa. I thought a lot before I said that, but it is time we said it and it is time we realised it. Indeed, in conversations I had with people representing all the races in Central Africa, most of them in private, these people urged upon me the necessity of bringing home to our own country a realisation of this danger.
The danger arises from two facts which the House and the country ought to know. First, there is the fact that the composition of the while population in the Rhodesias is changing. It is perhaps best illustrated by the figures of immigration into Northern Rhodesia. From the end of the war, in 1945, to the end of 1950, I was told by officers of the Government of Northern Rhodesia, immigration into Northern Rhodesia was in these proportions: for every 100 immigrants who came from the United Kingdom, 174 came from the Union. These 174 are not all Afrikaners; and all the Afrikaners are not nationalists; but there is concern about the fact that if that trend continues—and the same trend, although not to the same degree, is to be observed in Southern Rhodesia—then the composition of the while population will change.
Even more important and more dangerous than that is the fact that it is known to everyone that, for some time, well-organised African nationalist propaganda has been growing in Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia. The last manifestation of this was the formation—it so happened that it was announced on the eve of the Conference at Victoria Falls—in Southern Rhodesia of a political party under the name of Democratic Party—a name which deceives no one, for it is an Afrikaner Nationalist Party. It is growing in its influence. Indeed, I think we ought to know this, too, because it is an important matter to which my right hon. Friend and I gave a good deal of time and thought and consideration: it is widely believed—I put it no higher than

that; I cannot—in the Rhodesias that nationalist propaganda in the Rhodesias is subsidised fom unofficial organisations south of the Limpopo.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): Unofficial.

Mr. Griffiths: I said, from unofficial sources; from parties and Press. As a result, it was urged very strongly that if this tendency was to be resisted, it was essential to ensure that there should be a closer political association of these three territories. In 1950, during discussions with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, and after consultation with others, it was decided that we should set up a Conference of officials further to examine this problem of the closer political association of the three territories, and that the officials should be entrusted with the task of seeking to frame proposals which could go before all those concerned for consideration.
It was understood by myself and by the then Government, and by the Governments in Central Africa, that none of us would be committed in advance to any proposals which might emerge from this Conference of officials. The London Conference produced a report in which they unanimously recommended a scheme and a plan for federation, which they outlined in some considerable detail. I do not propose today to deal with those detailed proposals in the report, for more than one reason. The first reason is that I want to concentrate the debate this afternoon upon other matters which have transpired subsequent to the Victoria Falls Conference, because it is those matters which have led us to move a reduction of the Vote and to put certain questions to the Government.
Moreover, I hope that before any final conclusions are reached upon this matter, the House will have an adequate opportunity of considering this report in all its details. I will make only this reference, if I may—because this is relevant to something which I propose to ask the Secretary of State later: what the Conference of officials sought to do was to formulate proposals for the closer political association of these three territories, whilst ensuring that, under any scheme which might be brought into operation, there would be adequate safeguards for Africans and African interests


and, something even more important, that when the scheme was brought into operation there would be sufficient power over the Federal Government vested in Her Majesty's Government and this House to ensure that African interests were preserved and protected.
That is the essence of this scheme. They proposed that this should be ensured in two ways. First of all, they proposed that in the division of functions between the Federal Government and the territorial Governments, all these matters which most intimately affect the daily lives of Africans should remain within the prerogative and absolute sovereignty of the territorial Governments, and that the Federal Government should have no voice, no authority, no right to intervene or interfere in this arrangement.
The second proposal was one for a rather novel constitutional device—that there should be set up an African Affairs Board and that any legislation proposed by the Federal Government should be submitted to the African Affairs Board, who would examine its provisions from the standpoint of its possible effect upon the interests of the Africans. If the African Affairs Board were satisfied that the legislation might injuriously affect African interests, they could hold it up for reference to Her Majesty's Government, which means, finally, to this House.
It was also proposed that in the Federal Government there should be a Minister for African Interests who would be appointed, not by the Prime Minister but after consultation with the Secretary of State—and the report left it open whether the Secretary of State should be the Secretary of State for the Colonies or the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. This Minister would be appointed after consultation with the Secretary of State and could not be dismissed except with the consent of the Secretary of State. He would, therefore, be a member of the Cabinet, owing allegiance, not to the Prime Minister, but to the Secretary of State, to this House and to this country. That was a novel device. I am sure hon. Members will already have read with very great interest the letter of Margery Perham in "The Times" today, which raises the important problem whether any device

can, indeed, ensure effective control over native affairs once the substance of power has been transferred to the white community.
That report was published and I announced that the Labour Government, whilst not committing themselves to acceptance or rejection of any of the detailed proposals, submitted it for the consideration of all concerned as a constructive approach to this problem. I am sure that all of us who have read the report will desire to pay our full mead of praise to the officials who sought to do a very difficult job, and who, obviously gave a good deal of thought to the problem.
When I announced that the report was to be published and that we commended it as a constructive approach, and did not, at that time, desire to commit ourselves to any of the detailed proposals, I also indicated that, before the Government of which I was a member would pronounce upon the detailed proposals, we thought it was desirable—indeed, more than desirable, essential—that there should be the fullest possible consultation with the opinion of all sections in Central Africa, and, in particular, with the Africans for whom we have special responsibilities.
I also announced that the consultations would take place in Central Africa; that my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick and I would visit Central Africa; and that in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland I would consult with organised representatives of those two communities, and that my right hon. Friend would visit Southern Rhodesia and also have consultations; and that, at the end of those consultations, we would both attend the Conference at Victoria Falls, further to discuss the proposals, it being understood that the Conference at Victoria Falls was not designed to arrive at decisions but to have further discussions and to clarify issues.
I want briefly to report to the House upon the Conference, and also upon the discussions that I had. My right hon. Friend hopes to speak later in the debate, and, if he does, he will indicate what his experiences were in Southern Rhodesia.
In Northern Rhodesia and in Nyasaland one could not help every day being impressed by the fact that here were two


territories which bore the impress of two great men from our country—two great men of the 19th Century; an impress, very often, of influences which are in conflict—two traditions which it is very difficult to reconcile. I have sometimes said to my friends about this problem that it is expressed as a problem of how to reconcile Cecil Rhodes with David Livingstone—the Empire builder with the liberator. I confess—and open confession is good for the soul—that, nurtured as I have been in Nonconformity and Radicalism, my heart warms more to the Livingstone tradition than to the other.
But there it is. One finds this everywhere, in Nyasaland particularly and in parts of Northern Rhodesia, where Africans talk about David Livingstone as being still alive. Let me urge this upon the House, for it is important: his influence, his spirit, is still alive; and in that country, to many hundreds of thousands of Africans, this is the country of David Livingstone: and if in our policy we do not express the spirit of David Livingstone, it may have a very bad effect indeed on our relations with the Africans in those territories.
I had over 100 meetings in three weeks, most of them with Africans. My meetings were with provincial councils, with the Protectorate Council in both countries, and with the very important Congress Party, which is growing in influence—a factor of which we must take note. I had very full discussions with them. I want at this stage to say something which, I think, is important. It is not only important that I should say it, but it is important that it should be realised in this House and in this country and by our kinsmen in Central Africa.
It is sometimes said that it is no good discussing a problem of this complexity and this difficulty with Africans; that they cannot understand it, that it is beyond them. That is not only untrue: it is dangerous. I discussed it with Africans, and I was very deeply impressed by the discussions I had with them. I was deeply impressed by the way they put their case. Indeed, my right hon. Friend and I, at the Conference at Victoria Falls, at which there were African representatives from the two northern territories, were deeply im

pressed by their dignified behaviour and by the way they put their case. It is, I think, essential for us all to realise that the Africans are growing up.

Mr. Raymond Gower: On a point of order. I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. While we agree that the spirit of David Livingstone would be beneficial, may I ask whether to say so in relation to that territory is in order, and whether this Motion can possibly be in order, in view of the fact that, under our constitutional arrangements, it may involve agreement with a self-governing community, a partner in the Commonwealth, and that this may denote some lessening of its existing powers?

Mr. Speaker: The Motion before the House is a Vote, reported from the Committee of Supply, to which an Amendment has been moved to reduce the amount. This speech is quite in order.

Mr. Griffiths: At the close of those discussions, to which I have made only brief reference, we held the Conference at Victoria Falls. Before I deal with some of the findings of that Conference, I should like to say a word about the composition of the Conference, particularly in one respect, for I hope that this will be again considered before any future conference is held.
It was arranged between myself, as Secretary of State for the Colonies at that time, and the Governments in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, that representatives of African organisations, nominated and chosen by themselves, should attend as parts of the delegations from those two northern territories at the Conference at Victoria Falls. Before the Conference took place, my right hon. Friend and I made it known to Southern Rhodesia, which is a self-governing Colony—and, therefore, we observed all the proprieties—that in our view, since we were arranging to ensure that there would be representatives of the Africans from the two northern territories, it was desirable that representatives of the Africans from Southern Rhodesia should attend as well. It was a very great pity that they did not.
After all—I say this with all respect, but it is part of the problem—the total white electorate in Southern Rhodesia is less than the number of electors whom I represent in this House; but there are


millions of Africans—at varying stages of development, we know. The Africans from Southern Rhodesia are in varying stages of development as are the Africans in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, and yet representatives of the Africans of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland attended the Conference; and I think everyone who attended the Conference will agree that it was good that we had those representatives there. I would again suggest that if any further conference is held, this should again be urged. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is here. His chief would be the responsible Minister to whom to put this suggestion.
Let me point this out to hon. Members. One of the problems here is that there is a fear in the two northern territories that, if they federate, the policy which is pursued within Southern Rhodesia will be pursued in the two northern territories; therefore, when they see the difference between the two policies highlighted and emphasised, this fear deepens. That is what happened immediately we got to Victoria Falls. The first minute of the Conference at Victoria Falls emphasised the essential difference between Southern Rhodesia's policy of political advance towards Africans and the policy of the two northern territories. There were Africans representing their own people of the two northern territories and no Africans representing the Africans of Southern Rhodesia. I hope that will be considered.
Now I come to the Conference and its discussions. It will be clear from the communiqué issued at the close of the Conference that, after five days' full discussion, we did not reach the stage of discussing the detailed proposals in the London report—if I may refer to it in those short terms—for the simple reason that no really good, useful purpose could be served by discussing the detailed proposals unless there was first of all agreement about the principle. At that time, the Africans in Nyasaland were completely opposed even to the principle of federation, and the Africans in Northern Rhodesia expressed the view, with which I will deal later and make a proposal, that they would be prepared to consider federation on the basis of the London proposals if something else were done first. To that I will return.
At the Conference the whole time was taken up with reasons why the Africans were opposed even in principle to federation. I should like to make these known to the House, because it is very important that we should understand them. If hon. Members will look at the communiqué, paragraph 11 (3), they will find that there is, first of all, their fear that any scheme of federation would take away their Protectorate status, which might have very serious consequences for them. Moreover, the insistence of Africans in the two northern territories that the Protectorate should be preserved is related to another fear—which was put to me at the meetings—that federation might be the thin end of the wedge, and that, once they accepted federation, in a short time there would be such fundamental changes in it as to convert it into amalgamation.
Moreover, there were fears which had been aroused by speeches that had been made from time to time, particularly in the Rhodesias, attacking Colonial Office rules. If one section of the community attacks Colonial Office rule, then it is natural that the Africans should regard Colonial Office rule as being their protection. They urged that they were all deeply apprehensive that any plan of federation which involved eventually an expansion into amalgamation would result in their losing their Protectorate status, with all the security which they attach to the protection of Her Majesty's Government.
We considered that very fully—we had to do so, because they put it very frankly and fully—and eventually I will call the attention of the House to what was decided, because the recommendation of the Conference on this is of the utmost importance. It is embodied in paragraph 11 (1) of the communiqué issued at the end of the Conference. It stated:
The Protectorate status of the two northern territories would be accepted and preserved.
The next words are of very great importance—
This therefore excludes any consideration now or in the future of amalgamation of the three territories unless a majority of the inhabitants of all three territories desire it.
I emphasise the word "inhabitants," for that means all the people who live there, including the Africans, which means,


therefore, that amalgamation of the territories could not be considered now or in the future unless the Africans desire it.
Their second fear was the fear of losing their land. I am sure that hon. Members will realise this attachment to the land and the fear of it being taken away, the fear of becoming exiles, the fear of being driven away. No one can understand the problem of the peasants of the world, whether in Llanelly or in Nyasaland or anywhere else, without realising this attachment to the land and the fear of losing it. This was put forward at their meeting. This fear is very deep-seated, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House and the Colonial Secretary realise, as I do, that this is a fear which we must understand, respect and safeguard.
It was, therefore, agreed at the Victoria Falls Conference that in any proposals for federation that might be considered now or in the future, land and land settlement questions would remain the prerogative of the territorial Governments, and that means, in relation to the two northern territories—Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland—that the existing Land Settlement Ordinances should be preserved, and that on all these questions the authority of the Secretary of State for the Colonies should remain completely unimpaired.
I come to the third fear that was expressed. It was the fear that if a plan of federation were adopted and brought into operation, the political advancement of the Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland would be retarded, and, indeed, it might mean the end of their political advancement. They expressed themselves very fully and very clearly. It is important to us to realise that this desire for political advancement is of enormous importance.
In my short tenure of the very important, interesting and exciting office of Secretary of State for the Colonies, in my brief visits to a few of the Colonies in East and Central Africa and in the Far East, and in my day-to-day contacts with the representatives of all these territories who came to see me, there were ever-growing signs of nationhood among the black and yellow peoples, and what we call very often the peoples of the

backward countries of the world. This is very important.
As I see it, our greatest task—indeed, the greatest task of statesmanship in the years that lie ahead—is to seek in partnership to harness this nationalism to constructive tasks. If it is not so harnessed, it can become a force to destroy us all. Therefore, how important it is to understand it and harness it! We cannot harness it unless we give it its place, and we cannot give it its place unless we ensure continuous political advancement in all these countries. That is very important, and fears that they would lose that were widely expressed to me at every meeting I attended.
At the Conference at Victoria Falls, most of the discussion centred round these fears, and the only conclusions that we arrived at were those embodied in paragraph 11, to which I have referred. Something else emerged at those meetings. Perhaps in the context of the discussion on federation in the existing situation, the most important thing that emerged was a declaration which is contained in paragraph 7 of the communiqué, and the proposals from the representatives of Africans from Northern Rhodesia which are referred to in paragraph 6 of the communiqué.
In paragraph 7 we see that the only policy—I emphasise that—which can succeed in the conditions of Central Africa is the policy of economic and political partnership between Europeans and Africans. Let us be perfectly clear what we mean. Once we accept the policy of partnership, every doctrine and practice of racial superiority must go. I am not saying that they can go overnight—many of them are very deep-rooted—but it means that we shall work towards their elimination. Once we accept partnership, let us be clear about the thing. The partnership might begin as a relationship of senior and junior partners, but eventually it must develop into an equal partnership. The important thing all the time is that there should be a trend towards that. We all accepted that at the Conference.
Because we accepted that, the proposal made by the representatives of the Africans of Northern Rhodesia assumed even greater importance than it would have done otherwise. There were three representatives of the Africans of


Northern Rhodesia. One of them was Mr. John Moffatt, who is deeply respected by the Africans, and they themselves asked that Mr. Moffatt should be one of their representatives. The proposal was put by Mr. Moffatt for them after consultation with representative African organisations before they came to the Conference. The terms of the proposal were as follows:
The representatives of African interests in Northern Rhodesia explained that Africans would be willing to consider the question of federation on the basis of the Report of the London Conference of officials after the policy of partnership in Northern Rhodesia had been defined and, as so defined, put into progressive operation.
I believe that the proposal was one of the most important things to emerge from the Conference, as I shall indicate when I come to speak of events since the Conference. Then the Conference adjourned, and we remitted the matter back.
My right hon. Friend and I were convinced then—we expressed that conviction; it will be found in the communiqué—and are convinced now that federation of these three territories is desirable in principle. The problem is how to achieve it with the willing consent of the Africans. It is desirable for economic reasons. We ourselves became convinced in the end that it is desirable and that it may be urgent, although it is difficult to say what the degree of urgency is; but no one can go to those territories without being aware of the political feeling to which I referred earlier.
I now wish to discuss the events after the Conference. I shall put a number of questions to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I hope he will be able to reply to them. If the replies are satisfactory, we shall not divide the House, but if they are unsatisfactory we shall have to reconsider the position, because we believe that this matter is of very great importance at this time.
I now go back to the proposal of the African representatives of Northern Rhodesia. At the close of the Conference, my right hon. Friend and I urged the importance of this matter upon everyone, upon the Africans, the representatives of the Europeans, the Governors and the officials. We both said, "The proposal by the African representatives of Northern Rhodesia is of the utmost importance. They have offered

to enter into discussions to seek to arrive at an agreed definition of partnership and a common programme for its implementation."
We urged everyone to take steps immediately to begin the discussion. That was the opportunity to do so, the kind of opportunity which, if missed, can be missed for ever. I wonder whether it has been missed. I wonder whether we have missed the one big chance which we had at the Conference, which I urged should be taken at once. I ask the Colonial Secretary why steps were not taken immediately in Central Africa to begin these discussions. Why were not the representatives of the Europeans and the Africans brought together? One of the problems and dangers is that they will grow up as two nations. They have grown up separately and have now met after having had no contact of any kind.
At Victoria Falls both sides came together and discussed the problem, and at the end the African representatives said that they were willing to go back to Northern Rhodesia to discuss the matter of partnership. They wanted "partnership" to be defined. They wanted it to be more than a word; they wanted it to be a policy. They said that they wanted the policy defined and they wanted a programme which would embody a plan to develop policy towards equal partnership economically, socially, and politically. Why were steps not taken? I shall return to that subject before I conclude.
There is a second matter to which I wish to make only a brief reference. It is very unfortunate that since the Conference at Victoria Falls some speeches have been made by political leaders in Southern Rhodesia. In this matter I speak for my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick and myself. This is the first public statement I have made on the subject since the Conference last September. I have deliberately refrained from making any public statement about it until we could discuss it in this House and until I could express my views to the House.
I wish our example had been followed. Personal references do not matter anyhow, but what do matter, because they affect our whole relationship, are the unfortunate references to the Africans who attended the Conference, and I must reply to them. There was a reference


to "swollen heads." What a stupid thing to say! What an unfortunate thing to say! [HON. MEMBERS: "Whose speech was it?"] It was the speech of Sir Godfrey Huggins. Another speech about the Africans was as unfortunate as it was untrue. They behaved with real dignity during the Conference, in the discussions and outside, as did all the representatives at the Conference.
Another reference was very unfortunate. When we use words we ought to realise what their use may mean to other people. There was a reference to the fact that, as there had been a change of Government in this country, a "more realistic attitude" would be taken towards this question. What does this mean? What do hon. Members think it means to an African? What do hon. Members think it means to the people whom we met in the Conference? [An HON. MEMBER: "What does it mean to the whites?"] What does it mean to everybody? That speech was a very unfortunate one.
Nobody in this country made any references to this subject, and I commend hon. Members on both sides of the House on the way in which they have exercised restraint and on having spoken about the matter in public, if at all, in measured terms. That goes for every hon. Member of every party in the House.
I want also to refer to the recent talks in London. If there was one definite conclusion which I thought we had all reached at Victoria Falls—my right hon. Friend and I, representatives of Southern Rhodesia, the European and African representatives and the Governors—it was that in future we must avoid like the plague giving even the appearance of discussing this matter in the absence of the Africans. This is of immense importance. Therefore, when it was announced that Sir Godfrey Huggins was coming over here for consultations about Central African problems and questions were asked about it, I urged the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter. I asked the Government to take steps to indicate to Sir Godfrey Huggins that to have discussions at this time would have very unfortunate effects.
It was not only Sir Godfrey Huggins who came to see the right hon. Gentleman. Two Governors also came. The

right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to ask the Governors of any territory to come to London for consultations with him; but it is known—indeed, it has been announced—that the consultations that took place in London were consultations between the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, Sir Godfrey Huggins and the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
We must realise how this conference appears to Africans. I know that it was announced that they were consultations, but to the Africans they appear as a conference, a conference held to discuss federation, with the Africans shut out. Two or three years ago there was an unofficial conference of Europeans at Victoria Falls to discuss amalgamation, and that coloured the whole outlook of the Africans towards this subject. It was, therefore, unfortunate that these consultations should have taken place recently.
Here is a question which I want to put to the Secretary of State arising out of those consultations: What proposals, if any, were put forward by Sir Godfrey Huggins on behalf of Southern Rhodesia? What proposals, if any, or suggestions were put forward by the Governors, for both of whom we have the highest regard and respect? What was discussed? Even more important, what was agreed?
It may be that no agreement was arrived at except the date of the conference. It think I ought to tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is rumoured in Central Africa that at these recent discussions terms were discussed for—and I use the words which a correspondent of mine in Central Africa used—"rushing federation through quickly." I have made two visits to these African territories and, like others of my friends, I have maintained a correspondence with some of the people I met out there. That is what one of these correspondents said to me.
There was one decision at those talks which makes Africans feel that some such plan was arrived at. At Victoria Falls, at a fully representative Conference at which both Europeans and Africans were present, it was arranged that discussions should take place in the light of the conclusions of the Victoria Falls Con


ference, and it was hoped that the Conference would be able to re-assemble in the middle of next year. Indeed, we talked about, but did not fix on, July as being a suitable time. The Africans agreed with the decision of the Victoria Falls Conference. They agreed that the Conference should be assembled in the middle of this year, in July. That was decided in their presence, with their consent, and all of us agreed with it unanimously.
In the setting of that decision, let us look at the decision to hold the conference in April. Who made that decision? Her Majesty's Government; Sir Godfrey Huggins: the Governors. The Africans were not consulted. Why could they not have been consulted? I do not know what are the reasons for picking April instead of July, but the Africans were not consulted and they are saying, "Here is a conference which is now being rushed forward, to be held in April, without consulting us, after discussions between the Secretary of State, Sir Godfrey Huggins, and two Governors. Why April? Why this rushing?"
This impression may be wrong, but that is why we pressed for a debate at once. It is very important.
Last week the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) put a number of Written Questions to the Secretary of State, in which he asked him whether he was aware of the feeling in Central Africa. This feeling is becoming dangerous. The Africans have been holding conferences and conversations. They have appointed committees of action and they have been discussing industrial action. They fear that this April conference, brought forward three months without their agreement, without their consent and without their being consulted, is not in their interests. There is an opportunity for the Government to send a message to these people to show them that they are wrong.
One of the problems with which I was particularly concerned was this problem of racial relationships in Central Africa. I know of the relationship of the white and the black miners. The European Mine Workers' Union and the African Mine Workers' Union have sent delegations of good will to this country. They have been the guests of my own union, the National Union of Mine Workers,

who have sent, and I hope will again send, delegations of good will to Central Africa. I believe that the contacts that these two unions and my union have had will do much to help solve the problem with which we are faced in Central Africa. Now there is talk of strikes and of action because the conference has been brought forward. They think it hag been designed to rush federation through.
That is why I suggest with all seriousness that the April conference should be postponed. I do not do so for any partisan reason, because the most important thing at the moment is for this House unanimously to send a message to Central Africa and to the Africans to remove their fears. This April conference has now become associated in their minds with those fears. It seems to me that the best thing that could be done would be to postpone it and let the discussions go on. I put this forward quite honestly and sincerely.
I hope we shall get from the Colonial Secretary an announcement that the conference is to be postponed, and I hope we shall also get a clear statement from him that this conference is not designed or intended to rush federation or to impose federation upon the Africans against their wishes. That is of the utmost importance.
There is one final thing I would urge, because I think it is the most important problem of all, and that is the problem of partnership. I was privileged to visit East Africa and Central Africa during my term of office. In both those places I found the same problem. In Tanganyika, in Kenya, to a lesser extent in Uganda, in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and to a lesser extent in Southern Rhodesia there is the problem of multi-racial communities. Their future prosperity and well-being depends upon whether those races can work together in agreement as partners in economic, social and political matters, so that they can merge together.
In Kenya I found the racial tension rather alarming. I asked representatives of all three races—European, African and Indian—to meet me, and I said, "I wish to make a suggestion to you. Indeed, I make more than a suggestion. I beg you to come together, as representatives of your communities on the Legislative Council, in order to hammer out in agreement your future economic and political


advancement." If they do not agree on this, what then?
I heard the same thing in Tanganyika, which the Secretary of State has visited. If I may, I commend very warmly, not merely the proposals but the spirit of the proposals made by the Legislative Council in Tanganyika, representing the three races, who have said that they want now to ensure that in the Legislative Council representation of the three races shall be equal. If there is equal representation, that will ease the tension. I hope that in Central Africa, too, there will be discussions, and that out of them will come agreement.
If we do not accept partnership fully, seek to define it by agreement and resolve to implement it and to work it out, I urge the House to consider what is the alternative? Racial conflicts, racial fears, racial antagonism and catastrophe. That is the alternative. The time has gone when we can make decisions and, having made decisions, impose them. They must now be made by discussion and agreement. There are immense possibilities in the development of these three territories. There is so much to be gained for all of them by closer economic association and by closer political association: but it can be done only with the agreement of all of them.
I urge the Colonial Secretary, for the reasons I have given, to assure us on the points I have put on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends. We believe that by asking for these assurances we are serving the best interests of the people of Central Africa and of this country.

4.33 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): This debate differs from many in which we are engaged at other times because we are not this afternoon discussing matters of principle. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Or we are not disagreeing on matters of principle. The right hon. Member for Lanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who I understand will take part in the debate later on, are both agreed upon the principle of federation. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Llanelly, in very eloquent words, has re-affirmed, as I knew he would, his belief that federa

tion will bring great advantages to these territories.
In passing, we should not forget that it was the two right hon. Gentlemen who now face me who took the initial steps on the road towards federation after, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it had been a matter of discussion for many years. After the official report was published—what he calls the London Report—they are both on record as saying that they regarded it as a constructive approach; and later, when the final communiqué of the Victoria Falls Conference was published, both right hon. Gentlemen agreed with the principle of federation. That is what I was saying; we are not disagreed on the principle of federation. Her Majesty's present advisers take exactly the same view on this matter.
I assure those hon. Gentlemen who appeared just now to dissent from me, that I do not seek to minimise these matters. What we are doing is engaging upon a debate on other subjects, in the main: namely, the time-table of conferences, the course, sequence and progress of consultation, and, more particularly, of consultation with African opinion. I do not wish to minimise such a subject in any way, because negotiations, in my painfully long experience of them, are often more a matter of atmosphere and confidence than they are of the actual subjects and problems which are being tackled. He would indeed be an inexpert negotiator who neglected at any time the importance of creating the right atmosphere in which the negotiations were to take place and devoted himself solely to their substance.
When matters of principle and of conviction are concerned, I hope I may be regarded as a very obstinate man, because in those matters I think that obstinacy is not far away from virtue. But when it comes to a matter of time-tables and machinery, obstinacy on these subjects is, I think, very nearly a vice; and if it is not a vice, it is at least stupidity.
I remember it was said of a politician not very long ago by a friend of mine that he was one of the ablest men in the art of politics that he knew, because, he said, he could make the French Revolution sound commonplace. No critics of the right hon. Gentleman, if there are any, would ever say that he had this power


of making great events sound commonplace. He has the power of making quite small events sound as if they were major matters of policy. [Interruption.] I am not being critical. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are much too touchy. I may not be doing it very well, but I am trying to pay a tribute to the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence, and I am very surprised that some of his hon. Friends should dissent from that. I only say that he has lifted this matter, which looked to me very largely a matter of mechanics, on to another plane.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Surely the matter is not a small one. Surely it is a matter of the utmost importance.

Mr. Lyttelton: I shall come to this later. The hon. and learned Gentleman must contain himself for a little longer. Later in my speech I shall be able to reassure, not only the right hon. Gentleman, but those behind him, upon the point which preoccupies them at this moment. A large part of his speech was devoted, if I may say so, to an interesting historical survey leading up to the present situation, but in the last quarter of an hour of his speech he did express some anxieties which I am anxious to allay, and I shall address myself mainly to those in the course of my remarks.
Before I spend a few moments on federation, as such, I should like to say that I am genuinely anxious, as far as I can consistent with my responsibilities, not to be obstinate over these matters but to carry the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters with me. I might put it this way. On the principle of federation they have carried me with them, and I hope that on the working out of it I may be able to carry them with me.
I do not propose to spend very much time—the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with it much better than I could—upon the reasons which have impelled both the last Government and Her Majesty's present advisers to support a federal scheme for these three territories. These reasons, as the right hon. Gentleman said, are both political and economic. He developed the reasons for political federation at greater length than I need do now, but I reiterate that, in our belief, British political and constitutional ideas in these

countries will redound to the greatest advantage of both Africans and Europeans. I will not develop that point further.
Economically the inter-dependence of the three territories scarcely requires much argument. A single port serves all three. The railway system requires much more unification. There is a need for Nyasaland labour in Northern and Southern Rhodesia—a matter of great importance. Coal, as the right hon. Gentleman said, from Wankie, in Southern Rhodesia, is required for the copper mines of Northern Rhodesia, where they are now rather short of coal.
The common concern of all three is for the development of Nyasaland, which is the least forward of the three territories. It is most important. We wish to see it carried on with the help of the other two territories and sustained by the advantages which would accrue from the development of some combination of the three. There is the development of hydroelectric power from the Zambesi, which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
This is only a sketch, but there are massive economic reasons for federation. All these points are common ground between Her Majesty's Government and the Opposition. It is true that in theory these economic advantages might be gained by measures other than political, but I think the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me that practically and in fact that is not so—or it has not been proved to be so. The story of the work of the Central African Council hears this out. It has not been able to carry on an economic policy of that kind in face of the political obstacles and difficulties.
Against this political and economic background the right hon. Gentleman has this afternoon, as on other occasions, very, rightly and justly explained the four main anxieties which are now affecting the minds of Africans. At the risk of repetition, I must go over them again.
First, as he expresses it, federation is the thin end of the wedge for amalgamation. Secondly, Protectorate status in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia would be lost in federation. Thirdly, through federation they would lose their land. Fourthly, the political advancement of Africans, particularly in the Northern Territories, would be retarded by federation.
Let me say frankly that I cannot accept that as a statement of their anxieties and, equally frankly, that the very core of policy on these matters must be to provide safeguards on all those points. Indeed, on some of them, safeguards must be written into the Constitution. Amalgamation and loss of Protectorate status, for example, are entirely unacceptable from the point of view of Her Majesty's Government. We do not believe in tearing up treaties. We have made it clear that there must be proper constitutional safeguards against the loss, and, more than that, even against the erosion of Protectorate status.
We are bound to preserve Protectorate status, and the constitution must be framed in such a way that neither amalgamation nor loss of Protectorate status can come about without the consent of Her Majesty's Government. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, that means without the consent of the House. On these points we believe that exactly the present position must be preserved. The only way in which these two territories could lose their Protectorate status would be if Her Majesty's Government were to break or abrogate the treaties; so that we must regard the safeguards in this matter as going the whole way.
Security of land tenure is one of the most vital matters involved. This must be under-written by making it a matter exclusively in the sphere of territorial government and not a federal one. Upon this matter we can give assurance that the present position—that is to say that these are matters for the territorial government,—can be fully secured and safeguarded. Lastly—and here is a matter which cannot only be covered by words in the Constitution—the political advancement of Africans in the Northern Territories must be, and must be seen to be, safeguarded. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this question is closely allied to the subject of partnership, to which he devoted eloquent words towards the end of his remarks, and about which I shall have something to say at the conclusion of mine.
I now turn to the matter of consultation and the time-tables of conferences, and so on, but before I do so I must explain that the conversations in January and February between the two Governors,

the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and myself as Secretary of State, were in no sense a conference. We were concerned in making the agenda for the conference in April. The conversations were confidential but they were binding on no one. The objections and criticisms which are now being received will mark the next stage, and they will come to light in the agenda and the work of the April conference.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that in these private consultations between himself and the Governors of the three territories the agenda of the conference was decided without any consultation with African representatives?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman likes to put it that way. The conversations were concerned with forming the agenda.

Mr. Brockway: Shocking.

Mr. Lyttelton: If the hon. Gentleman will kindly allow me to finish this argument, it may be that he will agree with me, but I should like to develop it. It appeared to me, and I say quite frankly that it still appears to me, that the need for such conversations was fully realised at the time of the Victoria Falls Conference. In fact, in paragraph 5 of the communiqué which was issued after that conference, with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure—I do not want to make any small points, but this is part of the reason—these words are used:
It has become evident that further discussion within each territory"—
and these are the operative words—
and exchanges of views between the four Governments will be necessary, and the Conference has therefore adjourned.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Mr. J. Griffiths rose—

Mr. Lyttelton: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could help me. I have been at some pains to find out about this matter. I say quite frankly that that passage was read by myself and by those who were at the conference to mean exactly what it says, namely, a conference between the four Governments, and I read it as such now.

Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman is quoting from the communiqué?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes.

Mr. Griffiths: No doubt he appreciates that in the communiqué arrangements were made for discussions in the territories and for consultation, and for the conference to be resumed in the middle of the next year. The position is, whatever the right hon. Gentleman might call it—and I am not saying this after the event because I told him in the House before he began—that these consultations have appeared to the Africans to be a conference, particularly because of the fact that the two Governors were called over. In their view, it became a conference of the three territories.
Let us get this point clear. We adjourned the conference last September to the middle of the next year. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when this conference re-assembles, the agenda will be the same as that which we were discussing. I press the right hon. Gentleman on this point. He says that the conversations about the agenda were private. If that were stated in the House it would confirm some of the worst fears. When he says that an agenda was arranged, I ask him: What is that agenda? The point is very important.

Mr. Lyttelton: There are two points, and about the first one I must be absolutely clear. I do not think in any way that the right hon. Gentleman has met my point. The communiqué says in absolutely unequivocal terms—and that was recognised and signed by the right hon. Gentleman—that exchanges of views between the four Governments would be necessary. What were the conversations in January and February other than an exchange of views between the four Governments? [Interruption.] Please let me answer the point. That is absolutely clear. I read these words at that time very carefully, and they mean the same to me now as they did, even after the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to by-pass them or explain them.
The other matter is that of the agenda. I do not think there is anything secret about that. Everybody knows that in holding any conference there must be an agenda, and it will certainly come to light

in full before the conference is convened and at the time when deputations from the African bodies are in London.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Are we to understand that the agenda will be finally arranged as a result of the conference which the right hon. Gentleman had with the Governors and without consultation with the African representatives?

Mr. Lyttelton: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to get on with the narrative, he will find most of his points answered as I continue.
Now I want to explain what I believe is the main cause of difference, or apparent difference, between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. He said and supported it with all his oratorical gifts, that the ante-dating of the July conference to April had had a very bad effect upon African opinion—

Mr. J. Griffiths: indicated assent.

Mr. Lyttelton: —and led not only it but, I think, also himself to suppose that federation is to be railroaded through and that an atmosphere of suspicion and lack of confidence had been created by the mere fact of ante-dating. The right hon. Gentleman drew a rather frightening picture of action committees being formed or industrial threats being made in the Copper Belt, and so forth. I hope very much that these fears will prove exaggerated. Of course, they could not be entertained merely by looking at the documents concerned, because the communiqué foreshadowed a conference about the middle of next year, and April is about the middle of next year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
It is just as much the middle of next year as July, which was the date generally favoured. However, I do not want to argue whether the right hon. Gentleman is making too much of his fears and of the bad atmosphere because I do not want to join issue upon that and I am only anxious to meet him.
The April conference was and still is designed to bring within the framework of a constitutional document, perhaps even a draft constitution, many points. I cannot for a moment accept the suggestion that those points can be regarded as details or that any point in the constitution is a detail. I think any point in the constitution is a major matter.
Therefore, the April conference is designed to bring within the framework of a constitutional document or a draft constitution all those points raised in the officials' Report and in their amendments, so that public opinion may be focused upon a definite scheme and not upon a scheme which they do not know and which might emerge from the general lines of the conclusions in the officials' Report.
I go as far as to say with great sincerity that a great deal of the anxieties and uncertainties which surround public opinion today arise merely because there is not a definite scheme before it. I address this remark more to African opinion than to hon. Members opposite: that if Africans had the opportunity of studying the actual safeguards which we urge should be embodied in the constitution, and were to study them in an atmosphere of calm, they would see that the four anxieties to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and which I have reiterated, would prove to be groundless.

Mr. John Hynd: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to the safeguards in the officials' proposals or some new safeguards worked out in the discussions with the Governors?

Mr. Lyttelton: The safeguards I am thinking of are those which should allay the anxieties on these four points.

Mr. Hynd: New ones?

Mr. Lyttelton: Some are contained in the officials' Report, many of them have not been worked out. I might mention, however, the division of federal and provincial functions, which is still far from complete, and concurrent legislation. Those are matters which vitally concern the safeguarding of African interests.
I am saying that the April conference is designed to form a definite scheme. While I defend my action about the April conference, I am not obstinate or dogmatic enough to say that it is necessarily right or that the right hon. Gentleman is necessarily wrong. I only say that there is a very good reason for it, namely, that if one requires an informed public opinion upon a matter of this importance it can only be formed upon a definite scheme.
At present, there is no definite scheme. If there is not a definite scheme, it is only too easy to take counsel of your fears and to erect bogeys or pursue will-o'-the-wisps, or whatever metaphor is used. The idea was that the April conference should produce a definite draft, and it was and is to try to publish a White Paper. Let me turn aside here to say who is to come and what consultation is to take place.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I ask him two questions? First, may I again urge him to reconsider his first answer and his refusal to make public what agenda has been agreed? That is of great importance. Second, I now gather that the right hon. Gentleman is coming to the conclusion of the discussion—

Mr. Lyttelton: Not at all.

Mr. Griffiths: —and I wonder whether he is going to deal with what has been decided. Was anything except the agenda discussed at that conference?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am always ready to give way, but I think it will be for the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman if I finish this section of my speech and then invite him to put questions.
May I turn aside from the main matter to say who is to come and what consultation is to take place? I asked the Governors of both Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland to approach the African Representative Council and the African Protectorate Council to meet the Colonial Ministers, myself and my colleagues, in London before the April conference began—that is, 10 days, or longer if they so wish, before the conference is ready to assemble.
I have received an acceptance from the African Protectorate Council and I have some grounds for hoping that the African Representative Council will also accept the invitation. However, I must make it quite clear to hon. Members opposite that what they have accepted is an invitation to consultations with myself and my colleagues in the Colonial Office. They have not yet accepted any invitation to take part in the conference itself. That invitation has been extended to them and it is still open. It is as well to repeat my earnest hope that they will stay and take part in the conference and play their


part in producing a definite scheme. Therefore, if my hopes are realised, the conference will consist of the representatives of those two bodies, representatives of the three Governments and, naturally, Her Majesty's Government in the persons of my colleague and myself and, in particular, my right hon. and noble Friend.
I should here interpolate a remark about the African bodies I have mentioned. I believe that the right hon. Member who was my predecessor regards the African Representative Council and the African Protectorate Council as the effective constitutional bodies to be invited to play an official part in the conference—

Mr. J. Griffiths: indicated assent.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees, because I want to clear away as much misunderstanding as possible. They are fully representative of African opinion throughout their respective territories. They are elected in each case by the provincial councils which, in their turn, are chosen by a number of local councils both in rural and urban areas.
I think this is the part of my remarks which perhaps goes some way to reassuring the right hon. Gentleman. When the April conference was made part of the machinery of consultation in this matter, I had always thought that it might be necessary to have a further conference before we proceeded either to ratification or to abandonment of the scheme. I have always thought that that might be necessary.
But I tell the House quite frankly that I should prefer not to have committed myself to the necessity for a further conference until my colleagues and I and others had formed a judgment upon the results of the April conference and had taken, so to speak, the temperature of the proceedings. However, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon, it would be as well if I definitely went further, and I propose to do so.
I propose to pledge Her Majesty's Government to invite the three Governments to take part in a further and final conference before the matter of ratification or abandonment of the scheme is put to the Governments concerned. The Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia

has already told me this morning that he would be prepared to accept such an invitation if it were made to his Government. I should hope, but I do not want to take a final decision on it, that it will be possible to convene the final conference at the end of July.
Perhaps, therefore, I may sum up my new proposals, and I now acknowledge that they have become pledges. The proposals are that the matter should be taken in two stages—instead of one. The original proposal, sponsored by the right hon. Gentleman, was to hold one conference in July. My proposal is to hold two conferences, one in April, which will produce a definite scheme—I think that that is urgently necessary if informed public opinion is to get to work—and one, perhaps, in July—I hope, not later—which would produce a final result.
To clear up any possible misunderstanding, I should explain what will be the position of the four Governments concerned between the April conference and what I may call the July conference. The four Governments will be bound by the White Paper—that is to say, provided agreement is reached in April—containing the draft scheme, and they will not be able unilaterally to depart from that scheme. That will be the position up to what I call the July conference. It will at that time be open to the four Governments, acting in concert at that final conference, to introduce such amendments as a further study of the subject and public opinion may warrant during the interim period.

Mr. Gordon Walker: There is one point on which I am not clear. The right hon. Gentleman said that the other three Governments—four Governments in all—would be invited to a conference in July. Does he intend that Africans shall be invited, too? He did not say so specifically.

Mr. Lyttelton: I beg pardon. That goes without saying. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) draws some doubts upon my sincerity.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: I was merely repeating the right hon. Gentleman's remarks for someone on these benches. I was not in the least meaning to doubt his sincerity.

Mr. Lyttelton: As the hon. Member comes from a part of the world which is very dear to my heart, I am glad to accept his explanation.

Mr. Hector Hughes: What "goes without saying"? The exchange across the Table between the Minister and my right hon. Friend was of such a confidential character that Members over here did not hear what the discussion was about.

Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Member asked me whether Africans would be invited to the July conference. I said that it went without saying. In case the hon. and learned Member wants me to say, I repeat that not only are invitations open to them to the April conference, but that a fortiori they are open for the July conference.
There is one matter I have omitted from the right hon. Gentleman's intervention: that is, the agenda. I say straightaway that it is the officials' Report plus modifications, most of which, but not all of them, have been received. They were to have been in London by 1st March. That is the agenda.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I want to press this further, because this is important. At the Victoria Falls Conference, we had no agenda as such. We had the report of the conference, we had considered the report, and we considered the report of their discussions with everybody concerned. I gather now that there has been agreement that at the April conference there will be an agenda and that it will contain the London proposals plus modifications. Whose modifications? I am sorry to delay the House, but this is of very great importance and goes to the core of the consultations.
As the communiqué of the Victoria Falls Conference says, we discussed the principle and we discussed the African fears; we did not discuss the details. It was laid down in the communiqué that the Government of Southern Rhodesia wanted it reported that they had reservations about details. Others had them also, and it was recorded that other parties would have reservations.
If the April conference agenda is to include proposals for modifications of these proposals, is the invitation to submit those modifications for the April conference to be made to the Africans also?

That is very important. I have a shrewd idea of the modifications proposed by Southern Rhodesia, and I do not want to discuss them now. If the agenda is to be open to modifications to the London proposals, will those invitations to submit modifications be made to the Africans, the Europeans and everybody else concerned?

Mr. Lyttelton: Certainly. The agenda is not as informal as that of the Victoria Falls Conference. The right hon. Member must begin to grasp that the conversations in London followed exactly what he himself endorsed in the communiqué of the Victoria Falls Conference. It was acknowledged that further consultations between the four Governments were necessary. That is exactly what has taken place. Anybody can produce any modifications they like upon the agenda. I hope I have dealt with that subject finally and fully. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman will know that I have entirely met his point.
I was dealing with the position of the three Governments in the interim period, and I think there was an interruption with which I have not dealt.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I am sorry to interrupt. The right hon. Gentleman has talked about modifications and is leaving that part of his speech. He has given the Governors an opportunity of introducing modifications. Is it possible that the Africans have had no opportunity of introducing any modifications and that they will come to the April conference to consider, not only the drafting of a scheme, but the modifications that the Governors will introduce, without having any opportunity of suggesting modifications themselves?

Mr. Lyttelton: It would be much easier if the hon. and learned Member listened occasionally. I made it perfectly clear that an invitation had been extended to the representatives of both these African bodies to come to London, if they so wish, 10 days or more before the April conference is convened. It is during that period when anything which may have come to light, and which I asked should be in London by 1st March, could be put forward to be considered before the conference is convened. That could not be clearer.

Mr. Hughes: That is a little late from the African point of view.

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not think so.
There remain three important matters on which I must touch. First, an anxiety has often been expressed to me about the methods being used to explain the scheme to Africans; second—and the right hon. Gentleman touched upon this—there is the question of native policy generally, and that of Southern Rhodesia in particular; and third, there is the subject of partnership. I will deal first with the least important of these, although it is, of course, important: the explanation of schemes to the Africans and the methods employed.
The Secretaries for Native Affairs and Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council representing African interests have had a series of meetings with African leaders. District Commissioners have explained these matters fully at meetings of local African governing bodies and other African societies. I emphasise—this also picks up something I said earlier—that the Government spokesmen have been very greatly handicapped because the scheme—this is not a criticism, but something which has evolved—has not yet reached a final form.
Many of the anxieties about safeguards arise because those safeguards are not yet to be seen in a draft constitution. They are only hidden away—"enshrined" is the word which was used in another connection—in a long official report. Many of the anxieties arise from the very fact that public opinion is asked to form itself upon a document which does not exist. That is the justification for the April conference. We hope that this disability will, or should, be overcome by the April conference.
I now turn to the matter of native policy. A comprehensive study was made last year of the native policy of the three territories. It was presented to Parliament in a White Paper, Cmd. 8235. I think I should quote the officials' conclusions about that report. They were reached by a body of men including many who were closely familiar with these problems and whose impartiality cannot be called into question. Command 8233 was a very interesting report in many respects. They said:
we believe these differences"—

that is, between the three territories—
although important, relate largely to method and timing and that the ultimate objective of all three Governments is broadly the same, namely, the economic social and political advancement of the Africans in partnership with the Europeans.
We do not believe that the differences in native policy which still exist can now be regarded as a valid argument against closer association, provided that a suitable scheme can be devised. On the contrary, we think that there would be positive advantages in closer association from the point of view of native policy.
I am not quoting those words particularly for the benefit of hon. Members, but I am saying that the authors of that report included not only senior official advisers of His late Majesty's Government, but also leading official advisers of all three Central African Governments and in each case the Secretary for Native Affairs, that is to say, the person charged in each country with the special duty of looking after the interests of the African inhabitants.
I think these conclusions are worth studying—I am not talking of hon. Members—by those outside the House, those uninformed critics who are inclined to level charges, based largely on prejudice and hearsay rather than on a knowledge of facts, against the Southern Rhodesian Government.

Mr, Clement Davies: While the right hon. Gentleman is quoting from that document, will he again refer to Command 8233 in which equally informed people have set out the amazing differences which still exist between the treatment of the Africans in Southern Rhodesia and in Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. Lyttelton: I will reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The reason I quoted Command 8235 was that I thought he was expressing the other point of view and I wished to show that this is not quite so black and white as they make out. Here is a quite contrary opinion. I only read out the words; there may be other opinions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was very critical of Southern Rhodesian policy in this respect and I thought, to give it balance, that it would be as well to quote another view.
I come to the last subject, the one which the right hon. Member for Llanelly discussed at some length—and rightly—the matter of partnership. The right hon. Gentleman emphasised, as he has often


done before, and I take this opportunity of agreeing with him, that in the circumstances of Central Africa only a working agreement between the races can serve the true purposes of any of them. Although many safeguards of political advancement can be written into the very constitution that is to deal with protective status and amalgamation and safeguards against amalgamations, there are some clearly which cannot and it is to cover this uncovered field that the matter of partnership assumes such importance.
As the House knows, in December, 1951—the right hon. Gentleman asked about this point—the African Representative Council declined to take part in discussions which were to draw up a preliminary definition of partnership. That was unfortunate and, accordingly, there was no alternative but for the Governor to draw up a definition himself and there have been interchanges on the matter. He is now doing so and it will not be long before he is ready to discuss the document with all concerned. I do not think I need emphasise the importance of this definition. I pick up what I said earlier in my speech—that this matter of partnership was closely bound up with the fourth anxiety of Africans—that federation may impair or impede the political and constitutional advance of the inhabitants of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in particular.
I think that is as far as I can profitably carry my remarks this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will wind up and answer any questions hon. Members may raise. I feel sure that in our discussions here we shall all have regard to the gravity of these issues because they are really great matters of policy both to Africans and to Britons. There is no disagreement about that. It is remarkable that all parties, or the majority of all parties, agree that federation will confer great advantages. Without wishing in any sense to assume the role either of pedagogue or censor, I hope that in the discussion the House will try to clear the waters of counsel and not to muddy them with the stick of controversy.
I wish to conclude by reminding the House of the story—I hope I am not reaching my anecdotage—about a small child heard in pronouncing the Lord's

Prayer to make an emendation and say, "My will be done"—a very human alteration. On the other hand, I confess that the old French text:
We are their leaders provided that we follow them
does not figure prominently on the walls of Her Majesty's present advisers nor, for that matter, does the child's, "My will be done." Doubtless between the two the golden thread of statesmanship runs and I hope that we may find it and follow it together.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: With one sentence that the right hon. Gentleman uttered towards the end of his speech I am quite sure everyone in this House will agree, namely, the gravity of the matter being discussed today. We are discussing the present position and the future of six million people. Surely that is a matter which calls for our closest attention.
The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying that there were no differences between the policy of Her Majesty's Government today and that of their predecessors with regard to the need for federation. They have both implied that federation may bring about, or will bring about, economic development which will be of considerable advantage to everyone in those three territories and that that situation will be of considerable advantage throughout Africa. I want to emphasise that economic advantages are not the only advantages, are not necessarily, either, the most important and certainly not the paramount advantages we have to consider today. In statement after statement this has occurred, that federation is needed for the advancement, economically, socially and politically, of the people who occupy these territories and it is upon those other two points that I have very considerable doubts—the political and social advantages that will ensue from mere federation.
I say at once that I was pleased to hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). With everything that he said today I found myself in complete agreement. I only wish he had been firmer while occupying office and as firm as he is now on this side of the House, especially in his reference to the causes of the urgency with which this is now being pressed upon us. Hitherto


we have only found in the various White Papers issued the statement that there was urgency, that the matter must be dealt with very quickly and promptly. The right hon. Gentleman called the attention of the House to this today when, speaking from his knowledge and experience and from the fact that he occupied the position of Secretary of State for Colonies only a few months ago, he said that the urgency is caused by what is happening in South Africa. I am glad that he has been so forthcoming in regard to that.
If the House will pardon a personal reference, the first speech I ever made in public was when I was a boy, and it was in defence of people whose freedom was, I thought, then being threatened. Because I made that speech I was called, in those days, a pro-Boer. [An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not the only one."] Thank goodness I was not the only one. When making that speech I was not only abused but physically ill-treated.
Little did I then think that the freedom that I as a boy felt was being taken away from those people, and the freedom that was restored to them by the Liberal Government of 1906, and again of 1910 by the formation of the Union of South Africa, would be used by the people to whom we had given their freedom to take away freedom from others who occupied that territory and had as much right to freedom as they had. Not only throughout South Africa and South-West Africa but throughout Central Africa there is a fear that the Africans who are now outside the Union may be brought within the Union and dealt with as the Africans within the Union are being dealt with.
It is a remarkable tribute to the people of this country, and especially to the House of Commons, that the Africans throughout every part of Africa rely upon the word of this country, the toleration of the people of this country, upon their sense of justice and fairness, and have confidence in them and have always turned towards them for protection. It was for that reason that the people of Bechuanaland not only put themselves under the protection of the then Government but, in order to make the matter far clearer and sounder in their view, actually sent representatives over here who insisted on seeing and did

see—Her Majesty Queen Victoria, saying "We can trust you and those of whom you are the leader."
So it is today in those territories that are the subject of today's debate that the Africans in all three countries have a confidence in this country and the feeling that they can always be protected by this country. It is a wonderful tribute to us and our predecessors.
Turning to the matter which is before us today, the right hon. Member for Llanelly emphasised the need to consult African opinion. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has said, "Yes, quite right, they must be consulted. I have now arranged that 10 days before the conference begins here in April African representatives sent by the African Council are to be over here, where they will spend some time, and I can get their opinion." I only wish that that action had been taken far earlier.
Why is it that African opinion was not consulted? There was first the Bledisloe Conference, or the Committee over which Lord Bledisloe presided, in 1938. So far as I know, there was not a single African representative on that body, which reported against federation largely because of the different approaches by the Governments—the different treatment of Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland compared with that which Africans were receiving in Southern Rhodesia. These, they said, were incompatible, and they did not see how they could be brought together.
Then the late Government decided that they would hold inquiries. They have published the result of those inquiries. But who held them? Excellent men of great experience, who had been in Africa and were working in Africa, but not one of them was an African. All these reports about a federation have been drawn up by non-Africans to deal with six million Africans and their future, whereas we are dealing only with 169,000 Europeans all told.
But not one African was consulted. Is it surprising, therefore, that when the two right hon. Gentlemen went out to Central Africa, the Africans of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland first said that they would not even attend the Conference at Victoria Falls? They were against the whole thing, root and branch. It was due to the then Secretary of State for the


Colonies that they attended, but when they did so they were opposed to federation.
Nyasaland was so much opposed to it that her African representatives would not even consider it. Those of Northern Rhodesia said "We would consider it if only we could be satisfied about what is the meaning of true partnership. In what sense is this phrase being used? Shall we ever be treated equally with the Europeans, or not? It is easy enough to bandy the word "partnership" about but the situation in which 99.9 per cent. is in the hands of one race and only 1 of 1 per cent. in the hands of the other might be called legally a partnership."
No wonder these people are anxious as to what is the meaning of the word. What is even more significant is that in the self-governing Colony of Southern Rhodesia the Africans have not even been consulted. They were not even allowed to attend the Conference at Victoria Falls. How does one expect confidence to be instilled in the African when there is treatment of that kind? How can it be expected, when he has now seen what is happening in South Africa, where about 87 per cent. of the land has been given to the Europeans, of whom there are about two million, and 13 per cent. of the land has been reserved for the Africans, of whom there are six million? And they were promised equal treatment by this House.
Even under the Act framing the Union of South Africa, safeguards were included to protect the African. What happened? They have been flouted. Not only are the Government and the people of this country flouted so is the United Nations, and so is the International Court. The matter is put before the Court at The Hague, where a decision is reached. The Government of South Africa say "We do not mind that decision, it has nothing to do with us, we are above the law."
A decision is arrived at in Paris by the United Nations, and it sends a request that it would like to see the representatives of the Africans of South-West Africa. What happens? The Union of South Africa say "We are greater than the United Nations. We do not intend to be troubled by little legalisms of that kind. We shall not allow these people to go."
What they have to realise is that news of that is travelling throughout the whole of Africa. All Africa is awake today. We cannot maltreat an African in one part of the country without other Africans knowing about it. We talk about a united Europe. What will happen if we so stir up these people in Africa that they say "We are also now a united Africa," whether it be in Nigeria, the Gold Coast, Central Africa or South Africa"? That is why it is so essential that the Africans should be carried completely with us in every step.
We talk about their political and social future. See what is happening now. The right hon. Gentleman referred to one quotation in one annex and I referred to an annex contained in another Command Paper where the differences are set out.

Mr. Lyttelton: May I interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman? I think that earlier, when he interrupted me, he said that I quoted from Command Paper 8235 and that had I quoted from Command Paper 8233 I should have got an entirely contrary view. I see in looking through that very annex:
There are, nevertheless, a number of differences, some of them important, as for instance in the political sphere in central Government…though they are essentially of timing or method of approach.
I think that the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be called to those particular words.

Mr. Davies: Yes. In this Command Paper 8233, on page 28, is set out in Annex II a reference to paragraph 17 of the report and the differences in the actual treatment meted out to the Africans in Southern Rhodesia as compared with the Africans in Northern Rhodesia. For example, take subparagraph (d) in page 29:
Native Authorities and Councils are well established in the Northern territories and have wide powers in local administration as well as financial and other responsibilities. In Southern Rhodesia, by statute, they have similar powers and responsibilities, but their general development has been less rapid and they have not progressed so far in their use of these powers and responsibilities.
There is a world of difference between the approach of Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland as set out in some other paragraphs. It is said with regard to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland that the object is to train the African in taking


responsibility as early as possible; let him join in local councils and local administration, and even in the administration of justice—that is the way in which we can bring him along with us to take part in the government of the country.
But in Southern Rhodesian they take the other view. They say, "No, we must educate first and take a long time over that education; and it is only a long time afterwards that the man can be admitted into the council." The Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia has gone so far as to say that he cannot even see the African coming into the Southern Rhodesia Legislature in under 25 years.

Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is always so scrupulously fair in controversy that I feel I must again draw his attention to the fact that both the Command Papers 8233 and 8235 admit that there are some differences and both are quite definite that they are matters more of method and timing. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is always very fair, and I think he should state, when drawing attention to some paragraph about local administration and the fact that they had not progressed so far, that that paragraph is preceded by the words I have just quoted, and he should re-quote.

Mr. Davies: But I am right in stating the details of the differences. The details are actually stated. All that is contained in that paragraph is a general statement which this very annex sets out.

Mr. Lyttelton: The words which I have read are part of the annex.

Mr. Davies: So is this.

Mr. Lyttelton: One does not read one without the other.

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make a remark of that kind. He read one without the other and I had to interrupt him and quote the other. I do not think he is entitled to make or justified in making that remark. I quote further:
In the northern territories Native courts have extensive criminal and civil jurisdiction. In Southern Rhodesia their powers are at present limited to civil matters only and exclude divorce.
In the northern territories African trade unions are legally recognised and given guidance. In Southern Rhodesia they cannot

be registered though they are in practice given a limited de facto recognition.
Their courts, the administration of justice, local councils, trade unions—these are vitally important matters in which there is a fundamental difference between the treatment in Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman read paragraph (l) of the same annex?

Mr. Davies: In Southern Rhodesia professional and technical departments of the Division of Native Affairs have been established to provide separate services for Africans. In the northern territories there are no separate departments dealing exclusively with African affairs (except that in Northern Rhodesia there is an African Education Department"—

Mr. Alport: I am sorry, it was paragraph (1) which I wished the right hon. and learned Gentleman to read.

Mr. Davies: I thought that was the one. It is the very last one:
The Southern Rhodesia Government spends considerably more per head of the African population on such African services as health, education, irrigation and soil conservation…
Well, quite right; but I would much prefer to take part in seeing how that money was being spent than in getting it for somebody else who was spending it effectively, especially if that somebody else were getting it from me and my kind. The 29,000 in Southern Rhodesia are the only ones who can vote—[Interruption.]—the only ones who do vote. Even the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia said that no African can go into the Legislature in under 25 years.
Then my attention is called to the fact that they spend more per head of the African population on African services. That is the whole difference between us. What I am anxious about is that African opinion should be consulted, that African opinion should be respected, and that any change should be made only with their consent. Anything done for their economic benefit is all to the good, but what I am anxious about is their political and social development on their own lines.
I hope the conference will be a success. One is anxious about the Africans of this area and what will be the repercussions


in other areas. But I implore the Government and the Opposition—in fact all of us—not to take any step against the wishes of the Africans themselves and force upon them something which they think is politically or socially wrong or which they do not desire. If we are to succeed in Africa, we must carry these people with us.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: In rising to address this House for the first time I am very conscious how much I stand in need of the customary indulgence. On an occasion like this, one cannot help recollecting that this House was the nursery of most of the civil and political liberty that exists in the world today—and certainly that part which is most stable and secure. One remembers, too, that very many hon. Members who are here today sustained my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the supreme battle for freedom which this country has waged, and found an opportunity during that time to set aside two days for debating the welfare of the refugees on the Isle of Man. I am sure that it is in that spirit and in that tradition that we all approach the problem which we are debating this evening.
The constituency which has returned me to Parliament, the forebears of those who elected me, raised on the banks of the Tees great industrial enterprises. Their descendants, my electors, are today second to none in the world in skill and craftsmanship, and their products have gone all over the world, to bring incalculable blessings. But it is the emphasis and the onset of that technical civilisation on a world which the march of time has very largely left behind which raises the problems which we are debating this evening.
All of us in this House, I believe, are at one in wishing to see federation come about, if it possibly and decently can. The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary have both dealt cogently with the benefits which will ensue. I need not rehearse the economic benefits, but we should remember that the economic benefits will, in turn, bring political benefits. The rate of political advance depends very much on the rate of economic advance, because, as the wealth of the country increases,

so can educational facilities be increased, and more and more natives of Africa be enabled to play their part in public life. Therefore, in my submisson, it would be quite wrong to dismiss economic advantage as not also implying political advantage.
There is one other matter which provides another reason why federation is highly desirable. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly emphasised, in very moving terms, as it seemed to me, the urgent need of partnership between the races in Africa. Unless such a partnership can come about, there is only one possible result, and that is disaster. In a space like that, with difficulties of communication, unless the races can reconcile their differences, great dangers are bound to arise. And it is because I firmly believe that federation can mitigate those dangers and promote the partnership of the races that I wholeheartedly support this scheme.
There is one further point. I think it would be wrong to look on the problem as if there were only two possibilities, either a federation or each of the component parts—the three territories, or the two northern territories—pursuing their own political advance under the ægis of the Colonial Office. I do not think that is so. It seems to me that, if federation did not come about, there would be a danger of Southern Rhodesia looking southwards instead of northwards. I firmly believe that, if that happened, it would be very much to the disadvantage of the Africans, whose welfare we have primarily at heart, because they are the ones who can least help themselves. That, I suggest, is an additional reason why we should do all we can to promote federation.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that he disclaimed any idea of railroading these proposals through, but we should be failing in our duty if we said anything which encouraged any resistance by African opinion to these proposals, believing as we do quite firmly that the proposals are for the benefit of the Africans. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will try his utmost to carry African opinion with him, and that he will push forward with federation, so that we may hope to see arising from these three territories a Central African


Dominion which will be a beacon of liberty and brotherhood in the heart of the Dark Continent.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: This is the first time that I have had the privilege—a privilege which I think every hon. Member would like to have—of being able to congratulate an hon. Member on his maiden speech. I think that all of us, after listening to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) will agree that he has talent as a speaker. I find also that he has talent as an officer in Her Majesty's Army, in which he has, I believe, served with great distinction, and led combined operations with tanks for the first time in the history of this country. I feel sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will have an equally distinguished part in the operations of this House in the future.
We are today discussing a matter of immense importance, but the Secretary of State struck me as being a little bit doubtful as to how important it was. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were no great differences between us, and that we were discussing matters of mechanics and small events. I submit that we are discussing anything but small events and matters of mechanics, but something on which there are great and deep differences of opinion between Members in this House.
In order to make quite certain of the line which the right hon. Gentleman himself takes, I should like to ask two questions of the Minister of State, in the absence of the Secretary of State. First of all, as I am not yet clear on this point, is it intended to put pressure upon the Africans to agree to these proposals, or to any other proposals? That is the first question. The second one is this: Is it proposed to agree to any proposals, or to carry out any scheme, without the agreement of Africans? These are vital matters on which we should have an answer before we can know where we stand.
I would remind the House that Sir Godfrey Huggins made his view very clear on this point when he said:
I think I would need first to persuade the Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland to abandon their hostility to a scheme of federation"—

he recognised their hostility—
and I would be prepared to push federation through, whether the Africans"—
that is, in Southern Rhodesia—
supported it or not.
Those are the views of Sir Godfrey Huggins, Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. Are they the views of the Secretary of State for the Colonies? I am quite ready to give way if the Minister of State will answer, but, if he will not answer, I can only suppose that they are the views of the right hon. Gentleman.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): The right hon. Gentleman must understand nothing of the kind. In accordance with the usual practice, this debate will be wound up by my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. It would be contrary to the usual practice if I attempted to make a speech in the middle of it. My hon. and learned Friend will answer at the end.

Mr. Dugdale: That is quite all right, so long as the Under-Secretary answers these questions, which I am sure he will.
What are these proposals? I think that, if the proposals that were drawn up by the official conference—I am not talking about the Conference at Victoria Falls, but the Conference of officials, which met originally—were carried out, it would be a disaster for the whole future of Africa, and I propose to explain why.
The first thing we notice in these proposals is that all subjects of special interest to Africans would be left to each individual Government. On the face of it, that sounds all right, but what are "subjects of special interest to Africans"? Africans are ordinary human beings and they are interested in all subjects connected with their country in exactly the same way as British people. I know that a great many of them are not educated yet, but we are envisaging a period during which they will become more and more educated, and we are envisaging, I hope, a period in which every African will take an interest in every part of the development of his country.
Let me take some of the things which it is now proposed will be left to the Central Government as being, apparently, of no particular interest to Africans.


Higher education. Is that of no interest to Africans? One could easily have a system of education under which the colour bar could be established. Is that possibility not of interest to Africans? Then there is economic planning and general industrial development. Is that not of interest to them? Again, there is town planning. If a town were planned in the wrong way it might quite easily give rise to a system of Apartheid. Is that of no interest to the Africans? Immigration. Is that not of interest to them? Defence. Surely, that is of interest to them.
All those things are to be placed under the Central Government as being matters of less interest to Africans. I shall be told—and quite rightly—that safeguards are provided so that Africans can, in fact, have some say even indirectly in the matters handed over to the Federal Government. I should like to examine those safeguards. Are they adequate? They are to be carried out by a man who will be called, I think, the Minister for African Interests. What is going to be the position of this man? It would seem to me to be a quite intolerable position. It is proposed that he should be appointed by the Governor-General of this new federation and that at the same time he should be subject to the Secretary of State either of the Colonies or of Commonwealth Relations in this country. He will be appointed with the approval of the Secretary of State and liable to report to him and to get from him his ruling on matters of policy.
Whatever Minister in any Cabinet could possibly survive under those conditions? He will have a dual loyalty, a loyalty to the people who appointed him and a loyalty to the Secretary of State in this country to whom he will be responsible. It is an intolerable position, and goes beyond the system of collective responsibility. Indeed, it goes quite against it, and I consider that it is so unworkable that the Minister would himself before very long disappear because his position would be quite untenable.
It may be said that that is just my own private view, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) referred to the admirable letter from Miss Margery Perham in "The

Times" to-day which exactly bears out that point. She says:
In Tuesday's debate in the House of Commons upon federation in central Africa there is one lesson from history which should be remembered. It is the inability of a British Government to retain any effective control over native affairs once the substance of power has been transferred to the white community.
That is exactly what these proposals will do. They will transfer the substance of power to the white community, and after that it will be impossible for the British Government to exercise any adequate control over those affairs whatsoever. In that connection my point is somewhat reinforced, I think, by the success which Southern Rhodesia has had in getting round the safeguards imposed at the time that she was granted Dominion status. The safeguards were imposed so as to make quite certain that the Africans always had fair representation in Parliament and a right to vote, and to ensure that there would be no racial discrimination in the system of the franchise.
Southern Rhodesia has managed to get out of that very successfully without introducing racial discrimination as such by so raising the necessary finance which anyone must have before getting a vote as to make it practically impossible for every African to vote. I submit that in the same way the safeguards suggested in these proposals would, in due course, be got rid of, and that it would not take very long either.
I come now to the third point. A certain franchise system is suggested in these proposals. What is that system? It is that 170,000 white people shall have 28 representatives and that 6 million black people shall have nine representatives. These figures are entirely inadequate from the point of view of black representation, and what troubles me very seriously is that I do not think there is any opportunity for altering those proportions when once the Government have been established.
There will be these representatives, so many black and so many white, sitting together, and so far as I can see only if they all agree—and the majority of them being white representatives and a very large number being from Southern Rhodesia presumably they will not so agree—is there any possibility of that


proportion being altered in any way. Therefore, it would be a permanent proportion.

Mr. J. Griffiths: My right hon. Friend will have read the officials' report. I want to be quite fair and point out that this is one of the matters upon which they said they made no proposals because they thought it should be considered not by them but by someone else. They made no recommendation upon it, but left it for later consideration.

Mr. Dugdale: I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has made that point. I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not attacking officials, but a report which is being made public, and which naturally we are entitled to discuss. I know some of those officials, and I have a great admiration for them and do not wish to attack them in any way at all.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman is now saying what he has, in fact, been inferring. He is attacking the report, but the report was commended to Parliament by the late Colonial Secretary' at the time when the right hon. Gentleman himself was Minister of State for Colonial Affairs.

Mr. Dugdale: No. The officials' report was commended as a basis for discussion only, and my right hon. Friend made it abundantly clear over and over again that he was in no way committed to it. This is the first opportunity we have had in this House of discussing that report, and I am taking that opportunity to express my views on it, as I think I am entitled to do.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the officials' report as a constructive approach?

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, it is a constructive approach, but I disagree with many parts of the construction. I would not agree to the carrying out of the proposals in that report.
We have heard from various hon. Members of the need for federation. While I would agree that federation may be desirable, I do not think the need is anything like so urgent as some have made it out to be. For instance, let me take some of the points with which it is said

the federation will deal. Railways are already owned by the Joint Government Board. The air services are run by what the report calls "an efficient network." As regards Customs, there is already a Customs convention for the free interchange between Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Bechuanaland of Northern and Southern Rhodesian products. Again, it is possible to have agreement about road transport and electrification without federation, and also about Posts and Telegraphs in the same way.
As for defence, I cannot believe there is a different defence policy now between those three territories. In fact, it is quite obvious that they have the same defence policy and that they have worked it out in conjunction with each other. All these things are already being carried out without federation and there is not therefore quite the urgency some hon. Members would have us believe there is.
One of the points particularly stressed by those who said that federation is urgent is the need to tackle the problem of immigration, which I admit is very serious indeed, and particularly the immigration of large numbers of people from across the Limpopo River. That problem has, however, already been tackled satisfactorily by the Southern Rhodesia Government who have introduced legislation to deal with it. I do not know what the position is now but when the late Government left Office the Northern Rhodesia Government were about to introduce legislation which I gather was to be of a somewhat similar character. Under present conditions there is nothing whatever to stop them introducing such legislation.
The Central African Council has been in existence for some considerable time and throughout its existence the Southern Rhodesia Government did everything it could to make it difficult for the Council to work. And they are the Government who state now that federation is so necessary. In fact, the Cabinet of Southern Rhodesia said to Mr. Creech Jones at the time—and I have his authority for saying so—that they opposed it as an encroachment upon their sovereignty.
They opposed even this Council, which was seeking to form some kind of cooperation between the territories, as an encroachment upon their sovereignty.


Why is it that they do not oppose federation as a further encroachment? It is only because they expect to secure the major power under that federation.

Mr. Julian Amery: Would the right hon. Gentleman substantiate in what respect the Southern Rhodesia Government did its best to make central federation a failure?

Mr. Dugdale: On various occasions recommendations were made by this Council and time again when the recommendations came back to the various Parliaments it was the Southern Rhodesian Parliament who said they would have nothing to do with them, and it was the other Parliaments who agreed with them. Southern Rhodesia expressed their view that they did not like the Council and that it was no benefit to them but rather that it derogated from their sovereignty.
These proposals will hand over power to a small white minority. Let us see what the people themselves—the white minority—say. Mr. Welenski, the leader of the unofficial white representatives on the Council in Northern Rhodesia said in 1950:
I am a bitter opponent of the Colonial Office and it is my intention to break that stranglehold on our country.
Again, he said:
Our best chance of breaking with the Colonial Office lies in federation.
Put those things together and what is the object of federation? It is to break the "stranglehold" of the Colonial Office on Northern Rhodesia. Does the Minister of State for the Colonies or his right hon. Friend like the attitude of a man whose aim is to break what he calls the "stranglehold" of the Colonial Office upon the territories?
It may be said, "Why should anybody worry about giving this power to the white population there? They are fine people." Many of them are indeed very fine people. They have gone out at great cost to themselves and have built up businesses, farms or some other kind of enterprise and have done very fine work. But no set of men on earth are fine enough to be given such power as it is proposed these people should be given over another race among whom they live and work.
If we agreed to these proposals we would betray the trust placed in us by millions of Africans in Central Africa, and at the same time we should arouse the fears of many millions more in East Africa who see exactly the same fate in store for them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party referred to the action taken by the Liberal Government in 1909. They were great men and they made a great experiment—to give the white South Africans freedom to rule over very large numbers of their black fellow-countrymen.
If they could have seen what we see in South Africa today, I think they would have hesitated very long before they made that experiment. Let us learn from their experience that one cannot create a great new democracy by placing 6 million black people under the rule of 200,000 whites. That way lies misery, frustration and despair.

Mr. Coldrick: Before my right hon. Friend concludes, may I say that his argument seems to be addressed against placing any black people under the control of the whites? In so far as they are under the control of the Colonial Office and the Colonial Office in this country is manned by white people, is it his suggestion that we should eliminate all responsibility for their control?

Mr. Dugdale: My hon. Friend should have noted that I said, "among whom, they live and work," and that is very different.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: I do not intend to follow the remarks of the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) in detail, because I am sure many hon. Members, would believe that that is precisely the sort of speech which could do no possible good for the furtherance of federation either in its present form or in an, improved form. If we are to believe that the Minister responsible for these matters in the last Government was as keen on the conception of federation as he has, always made perfectly clear inside and outside this House that he is, I am sure he would regret the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's speech and the way


these proposals were attacked before there has been an opportunity even of discussing them.
I should like, however, to make two comments on the specific remarks made by the right hon. Member for West Bromwich on the present state of affairs in Southern Rhodesia. I feel qualified to do that because, if I am not the only hon. Member, I must be one of the few, who has ever lived in that part of the world, as opposed to making a short stay. I have also had the opportunity of taking a legal degree in Southern Rhodesia, including its constitution, and at the moment I am qualified as a barrister in both countries, here and there.
Two remarks made by the right hon. Member for West Bromwich have very little accuracy. One referred to the fact that the Southern Rhodesian Government had deliberately jerrymandered the opportunity of increasing the native vote by putting in a property qualification. But that form of qualification has been in practice over a wide area of the world for a very long time and was not some sinister move on the part of the Rhodesian Government in particular. Moreover, although under that qualification there are between 4,000 and 5,000 Africans entitled to vote, only 800 of those have taken the trouble to register their votes.
One other point which was made' was the querying of the safeguard which is available, at the moment, for native affairs, under the present Southern Rhodesian relationship with this country. It has been made clear that the criticism is that, simply because at no time has the Governor had to use his veto, the Southern Rhodesian Government have always managed to by-pass any restrictions on their activities. Anybody living in that country knows that constitutionally the scheme is working so well, and has done so for so long, precisely because the responsible Ministers there consult the Governor before any legislation is brought in, to avoid the necessity of any great constitutional issue arising.
Having dealt with those two points briefly, because I thought they should be on record in that form, I should like to mention a rather more serious aspect of this whole discussion. A great deal

has been said outside this House as well as inside—and more will be said later today, no doubt—defending the interests of the Africans as opposed to the so-called imperialist desires of the white population. We have heard very little, so far, about the interests of the European population and there has been very little defence to the unfortunate attacks made on them. In certain sections of the Press, unfortunately, there has been plenty of evidence in this direction.
I just want to mention the lengths to which this criticism of our fellow countrymen in the Rhodesias has gone, to show precisely what effect that will have on the future of that country and the future of federation. I have here, for example, a quotation from the "New Statesman" of 23rd June last year:
Such is the attitude of the great majority of the settlers in all three territories that Federal Union would certainly be used by them to reduce the Africans of the two Protectorates"—
that is, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia—
to the status of hopeless servitude which the Africans of Southern Rhodesia now occupy.
That sort of remark is one that has been made again and again, and it is hardly surprising that there is growing up a very strong defensive feeling among Europeans in Southern Rhodesia against the conception of federation. All the spate of words used so far has been about the effect of federation on African affairs. Let me assure hon. Members opposite that there is fear on the European side in Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia whether federation is right for them. The fear is not present on one side only; the other side has equal, if not greater, doubts.
It is not only a matter of actively attacking Europeans in that country. A lack of trust has also been shown in speeches in this House which has equally damaged the chances of federation being accepted by Europeans. I am afraid I have not been in this House long enough to know the constituency of the hon. Member who last interrupted, but I think the point he made was a very good one. Why should it be thought that because our fellow countrymen go out to live in Central Africa they should have less integrity and less moral values than we who sit in this


House today? Far too much has been said suggesting that the moment they go to live in Central Africa they become some form of outsized Fascist.
It is particularly unfair for hon. Members here and the Press to attack our fellow countrymen because, as things have worked out in our imperial development, so many of our fellow countrymen living abroad have been disfranchised and have no chance of having their views directly represented in this House.
With regard to the various criticisms made about the conditions alleged to exist in the Rhodesias—particularly Southern Rhodesia—it is noteworthy that there is such a constant immigration into Southern Rhodesia, into this alleged "hopeless servitude," by thousands of natives every year from the other two "Paradise" territories under the control of the Colonial Office, that it is absurd to suggest that there is a great deal of difference in the conditions of the natives in these countries.
Unless we are to disbelieve the report of the Conference of officials which has been mentioned this afternoon, I think all Members who have read that report would agree that, although there are differences between the policies in the three countries, it is fair to say that it was generally accepted that the ultimate objective of all is the political and economic advancement of the Africans, in partnership with the Europeans.

Mr. James Johnson: Can the hon. Member tell us why many sections of the white population are opposed to federation?

Mr. Bennett: I was going to deal with that later in the course of my remarks, but I will deal with it now. The European section of the community is in a state of doubt about federation at the moment precisely because they believe that their interests will be affected to their own detriment when compared with the African population.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: By whom?

Mr. Bennett: By whatever scheme of federation is brought in. Hon. Members opposite are prepared to believe that there are genuine doubts among the natives about the outcome of federation,

and it is surely only fair in the interests of the Europeans to say that they have similar doubts about the effect it will have on their interests.

Mr. Johnson: I want to know why they have doubts. One can see why the natives have doubts, because of the Land Tenure Act and the Franchise Act, but why should the whites have any fears?

Mr. Bennett: I will try to answer that shortly. As has been said again and again, there is a majority of Africans in these territories. On the West African coast there is an example of a completely African form of Government developing, and if any similar project came into being in Central Africa it would seriously threaten the national interests of our fellow countrymen who earn their livings there and who have staked their whole interests on a partnership conception in Southern Rhodesia, as opposed to the creation of a purely black form of republic. If anybody here were to be a member of a very small minority, I think he would agree that it is natural that that minority could have fears about the safeguarding of its interests in the future. It is not a novel conception that a minority has anxieties about its future.
If it is really true that federation is going to be for the benefit of the natives in the long run, economically, socially, and politically—and that does seem to be the view of most hon. Members on both sides of the House or we should not have gone so far either under this or the late Government—we should consider very carefully what is the best way to further that end, and not to obstruct it. If a plebiscite were held—and it will have to be held in Southern Rhodesia under that country's constitution before federation is possible—I am not at all sure that one would find the overwhelming acceptance of the idea that is believed to be present.
There would also be some doubt as to the advisability of continuing to express a lack of trust in the European representatives of these countries. Let us contemplate what will happen if federation does not go through, due to obstruction, from whatever quarter it may come. It really would not be possible to return to the status quo as it was before these proposals were put forward. The clock will not go back, and we can be quite sure that if, in the long run, federation is


blocked and that union with the British Dominion or some relationship between the British territories in that part of the world is not encouraged, some other unity will come in another way. I suggest to those hon. Members here who have a dislike for native policies being pursued further to the South and who yet seek to obstruct federation, that if they were to live in that part of the world they would realise that they are doing precisely the opposite of what their aim should be.
There is already a minority trend in Southern Rhodesia towards foresaking the idea of unity with the North. It is only a small minority now. Any form of opposition, of blocking all other means of progress, and of trying to put the clock back would certainly encourage the strength of that minority; with what result to the native population of that country I leave hon. Members opposite to imagine.
In that connection, it is worth mentioning that the idea of a union between the Rhodesias and the Union of South Africa is present in many minds in that part of the world at the moment, and I should like here to quote the wording of a Private Member's Motion which was submitted to the House of Assembly in South Africa on 18th January this year. It has not yet been debated, but its movers are members of the United Party and not Nationalists. The Motion says:
In the opinion of this House a greater union of South Africa embracing Southern and Northern Rhodesia has become a matter of urgency for the security of the white civilisation of the African Continent, and we therefore call upon the Government to negotiate with these two Northern Territories with a view to joining the Union in the formation of a greater Union of Southern States in Africa.
I ask hon. Members who, by their speeches or in any other way, may be against federation whether that is really the drift in that part of the world which they wish to encourage.
We have heard quite a bit about the benefits which would come from the two Rhodesias and Nyasaland joining a federation, but less of the disadvantages which would follow if for one reason or another unity southwards rather than northwards were to be encouraged. In that connection, I should like to mention the repercussions on the great Bechuanaland Protectorate if, in such an eventuality, it were completely landlocked

from all contact with genuine British colonial interests. Other proposals have been bruited abroad in that part of the world, including suggestions for amalgamation between Southern and Northern Rhodesia only, and also simply for economic or other amalgamation between just the copper belt of Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia. To my mind, all these proposals would seriously harm not only British interests in that part of the world, but also native interests.
As a very new Member, I do not wish to appear to preach on this, but this is a serious matter, and we all have a duty to consider this thing very carefully before we do what may end up by spoiling what is, to my mind, one of the greatest experimental conceptions of British imperial development that history has yet seen. So far we have seen various ways in which the Commonwealth has developed, but we have never yet succeeded in getting a genuine partnership between a substantial number of European races living in a country and the native inhabitants.
In this proposed federation we have a chance to achieve something which we have not yet been able to achieve elsewhere; we have a chance to set up a partnership way of life between the two races, which would be in marked and advantageous contrast with the white nationalism in the South or the black nationalism in the Western States of Africa at the moment.

6.24 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: In rising to address this House on the first occasion, I do so in the hope that it will accord me its customary indulgence, and that it will bear with me in what is, after all, always a difficult task. It has been suggested this afternoon that before any of us speak on the subject of Central African federation we should have qualifications for so speaking. May I say that I have three qualifications: first, I represent constituents whose forebears built the ship with which Drake went out and started an Empire; second, I am a colonial—and one of the few colonials in this House of Commons; and third, I am a Member of the House of Commons. I submit that those three are sufficient qualifications for my addressing myself to this subject.
The suggestion has been made this afternoon by the Colonial Secretary, by


inference, that we should do our part in promoting confidence among the African people themselves in their approach to federation. I would suggest that the job of this House of Commons is to approach federation with a lack of confidence, for this reason. Africa is the last remaining territory in the world where uncontrolled and practically uninspected exploitation of the indigenous population can take place, and is taking place.
Nevertheless, from the Cape to Cairo the African is emerging from a grim short life of disease, squalor and abysmal poverty to something better. Unfortunately, in this emergence—this painful emergence—there are clashes, emotional struggles and threats. I am sure that all Members of the House will have read of the resolution passed by the Northern Rhodesian Congress last Wednesday in opening a mass campaign against federation, expressed in terms that are menacing and in accents that do not bode a reasonably happy time for the protagonists of federation.
This emergence from poverty is and has been meeting the opposition of the organised white populations in Africa. It is equally true that there are some Europeans who have given counsel and guidance to Africans, but the opponents of this emergence of the Africans argue that the African people racially are not capable of exercising the necessary tolerance and restraint. Well, they are not doing so badly at the moment in Nigeria and on the Gold Coast. I submit that the truth of the situation is that many of the white people in Africa are showing that they do not possess the tolerance, sympathy, understanding and spirit of compromise that must be necessary to democratic and progressive government.
I said that Africa offers an almost unique opportunity for exploitation. I am not alone in thinking that, for in the first nine months of last year thousands of people trooped into these African territories which we are discussing for the purpose of making a living there. Seven or eight thousand British-born immigrants went into that country; but at the same time over 10,000 South African immigrants went into the Rhodesias. Some of those are refugees from Dr. Malan. Some of them are people who have learned the hard way that,

whereas a few years ago a Briton could not get a job in the Union unless he could speak both English and Afrikaans, today if he can speak English he can neither get a job nor hold it. It is because of that that many of the people in South Africa are leaving the Union without regret, and are only too happy to shake the dust of its soil from their feet.
But many of the others are what I described as "Sudeten" South Africans: that is, people who are leaving South Africa to emigrate to the Northern countries with a definite political purpose, and that purpose is to carry into the Rhodesias the very systems of economic discrimination and restriction which are practised south of the Limpopo They will find as a common experience that the exploitation in the Rhodesias is not as great as it is in South Africa—but it is still very considerable. The wretched pass system exists in Southern Rhodesia; every urban South Rhodesian African labourer has to carry three passes if he is in work. In Northern Rhodesia, four or five passes are required in certain circumstances. This perpetuation of the pass system, this discrimination against the Queen's subjects in the Rhodesias, is to be deplored. In the last 20 years there have been 1,675 exemptions. That is an average of 80 exemptions from the pass system each year for nearly 3,500,000 people.
In Southern Rhodesia there is no legal provision for the recognition of African trade unions. It is perfectly true that there is no bar to the establishment of an African trade union, but the Southern Rhodesians say that any agreement signed between an employer and an African trade union for the purpose of governing wages or conditions is not enforceable in a court of law. Southern Rhodesia argues that the Africans are not yet capable of organising and managing trade unions, but, on the other hand, it refuses them admission to white trade unions. Sir Godfrey Huggins put the situation more clearly than I possibly can, when he said:
There is no legal colour bar in the trades, but, in practice, the native is not working in skilled and semi-skilled trades as he is not yet worth the wages fixed. We have a native labour board which fixes conditions of service in the major towns. These measures do not


apply outside the European towns, and on the mines and farms in the rural areas anyone can offer his services for the pay he desires or can get.
The situation in Northern Rhodesia is that white employers and white workers alike, I regret to say, bar the African from all but a very small list of skilled and semi-skilled occupations, and the Government themselves restrict to a tiny degree the amount of money they are prepared to spend on African skilled trades education. In the year 1950 the Government Mines and Labour Department, which spent that year £80,000, spent only £6,000 on African trade testing. Only three trade testers were employed for the whole country, two for the building trade, and one for the mechanical trade. In that year they refused absolutely to spend the money that was necessary for the building of an African training centre.
In Northern Rhodesia's primary industry there is not any pretence of there being a situation where the African can make his way. Northern Rhodesians say that there shall be equal pay, and equal pay works this way. If one wants to employ an artisan one has to pay the same money whether he is a white man or whether he is a black man, but by restricting entry into the skilled trades, there is a scarcity of competent black artisans, and, in those circumstances, although there may be equality of pay, there is not an equal chance of obtaining that equal pay.
As I say, in the copper mines that theory does not run. In November, 1950, the last date for which I have the figures, the rate for an underground African miner was 75s. 11d. a month. Whether that was the pay he desired or not, I do not know, but that is certainly the wage he got—75s. 11d. a month. The white miner working underground in exactly the same mine got £100 a month.
We have had some discussion tonight about the electoral rôle in Southern Rhodesia. A few years ago, to get on that one had to have property worth £150 a year or an income of £100. That barrier has today been raised to £500 and £240 respectively, and I may say this, that there are few people living in my constituency of Deptford who would be able to qualify if that property qualification were required here.
It is no defence of this to say that conditions are worse in South Africa. Michael Scott has described the situation with great clarity in his magnificent work, "Shadow over Africa." He has described the 12-pass system—the fact that in South Africa in certain circumstances the urban African has to have a residential permit, a labour permit, a permit to be out after 11 o'clock at night, a permit to seek work, a permit to be in a proclaimed area for domestic reasons, a visitors permit, a permit for registration as a voter—and finally—and this is a caricature of the pass system—a pass to exempt him from carrying a pass.
Under this system a million men are prosecuted a year, a tenth of the African population of the Union, 85 per cent. successfully, for having the wrong pass at the wrong time or in the wrong manner, or for not having any pass at all. The legal position of the African in the Union today is that any policeman can arrest any African at any time of the day or night on any street and take him before a competent prosecutor with every chance the prosecution being successful. Legal discrimination of this kind has been extended to industry itself. The formation of trade unions is virtually banned, and the situation there is that an African is free to get a job at the wages he desires or the wages that he can get.
Immigrants into Central Africa from South Africa have brought in with them this system of racial and economic discrimination, and are regarding the climate of federation, as proposed by Sir Godfrey Huggins and the rest, as favourable to the transplanting of these ideas of how the African people shall live.
Henry Ford once said, "You cannot build a motor in any language but English." Of course, it was nonsense; but this is true, as many of my colleagues know who had the honour as I had of working on the Overseas Food Corporation and on the groundnut scheme—which proved it to be true—that in Ki Swahili one could teach simple Africans—some described them as straight out of the trees—to be quite reasonably good semiskilled workers, excellent repetition workers, in a few months, and that one could teach them to be first class hospital orderlies, and could teach them to be excellent tractor drivers and lorry drivers, also, after a few months' training.
The lesson we learned then, when training these people, was that, if we train the Africans with tolerance, sympathy and understanding, in exchange for whips and blows, and a constant feeling of frustration, we can turn them into men capable of producing the sort of wealth, vegetable and mineral, that the world—and the Africans themselves—are looking for.
I believe that the approach to the African problem, and to this terrible menace that hangs over the whole of Africa, with the exception of Tanganyika, and, to a less extent, Kenya, should be the economic development of the country, and, therefore, I ask, when we look at federation, that we should say, "How is this going to help the African to this freer economic position, to this better standard of life, which is his by right. and which he can get?"
We have got to reckon, too, that without some of the things we have now the development of those countries is impossible—without coal, iron, steel, without cement, fertilisers, technicians—without all these Africa will go on wallowing in her primeval slime of poverty. We have to face the fact, and have to be prepared to give up these things—or be able to get them by international action, and if we can get them, and direct them into Africa, and concentrate on the economic future of the African people, then the political settlement, will, in my view, follow easily.

6.40 p.m.

Sir Robert Grimston: I have been in this House for some years, but I think that this is the first occasion upon which I have risen to speak following a maiden speech, and I welcome this opportunity of being able to congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), who has just spoken. I think that the hon. Member started with a pretty wit when he remarked that one of the three reasons why he claimed a right to speak here upon this matter was that he is a Member of the House of Commons. I think that possibly when he speaks to us on other occasions, the hon. Member will find that his speeches are fairly considerably interrupted, but that, of course, is a tribute to the interest and to the cut

and thrust of debate, to which the late Mr. Speaker Fitzroy referred, which he will provoke. Altogether, I am sure that we shall look forward to listening to him on many future occasions.
The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. J. Dugdale), who was Minister of State for Colonial Affairs in the last Government, surprised me because he complained that the Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia made a speech in which he avowed as his object the getting rid of the stranglehold of Whitehall. By inference the right hon. Gentleman apparently wants to maintain the stranglehold of Whitehall on a young and growing country. He should have lived in the days of Lord North. If that is his attitude and the policy he would like to pursue, we shall only end with the same result that happened when this country tried to maintain for too long a stranglehold upon the American Colonies.
I do not wish to detain the House for very long, but there are one or two things which need to be said. In opening the debate the ex-Colonial Secretary said that there were one or two things which needed to be said. I think that the right hon. Gentleman said them with very great force and courage, and that he put forward the political case for federation in no uncertain terms. I think that when one adds to that the undoubted economic reasons which exist for federation, there really can be very little doubt upon either side of the House that the right policy is to promote federation of the three territories.
It so happened that during the Recess I paid a short visit to Southern Rhodesia. I think that perhaps one of the worst things that anyone can do is to pay a short visit to a country and, on coming back, to think and to tell everybody that he knows all about it. I propose to do no such thing. I should like to give to the House some impressions which I gained and merely to report some conversations which I had with Europeans living and working in Southern Rhodesia. They will bear out very much of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. F. M. Bennett), who lived for some time in Rhodesia.
We hear upon all sides that we have today a growing sense of nationhood, and the ex-Colonial Secretary referred to the growing sense of nationhood of the


African races in that continent. Do not let us forget that that great sense of nationhood has also manifested itself in the white population there, and I think that is a thing which is very often forgotten; and that goes for our people—and by our people, I mean Rhodesian-born people and those of us, Englishmen, Scotsmen, and so on who have gone out to settle in Rhodesia and in the other territories.
What is the sort of thing they said to me? I am talking about conversations with young men who have gone out there tobacco planting and the rest, and I am not merely expressing the views of such elderly politicians as one happens to meet out there. This is the sort of thing they were saying, "We have to live there. We are developing the country; not the politicians at home. We know something about the problems. Indeed, if the increased native population were left to itself now, it would soon be starving. They know nothing about soil erosion or many of the modern processes which have to be undertaken to grow enough food in this country; let alone development." They go on to say, "We know the natives and we know the extent of their development." Let me quote Command Paper 8233, which has been quoted in several speeches in this debate. At the top of page 29, it talks about the policy in Southern Rhodesia. It says:
Policy in Southern Rhodesia holds that in order to fit the African to take his place in the community as a full partner"—
mark you—
with citizens of a more ancient civilisation it is first necessary to make him the equal of his future partner in health, material well being and education.
That is the basis of native policy in Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. J. Hynd: Does one assist that objective by preventing them from getting skilled and semi-skilled jobs?

Sir R. Grimston: They do not in point of fact. Those who are capable are advanced to skilled and semi-skilled jobs. In the various parts of the country I visited, the number who can even be trained to be capable of tractor driving, and so on, is not as great as in the part where the hon. Member for Deptford gained his experience. They vary from one place to another.

Mrs. Eirene White: Would the hon. Gentleman advocate that the franchise in this country should be withheld from working-class people here until they are equal in material well-being and education to the best educated and wealthiest people in the land?

Sir R. Grimston: The African in Southern Rhodesia gets the vote when he has got a very reasonable wage. The figures which have already been quoted show that out of some thousands who are entitled to it, only some hundreds are taking advantage of it.
I will return to the point of what our blood brothers are saying out there. Hon. Members opposite dwell so much on the African point of view that they think that there is no other. I want to stress what I have found out there about the growing sense of resentment of the white population at what is happening here, and the results which that resentment will have when they are confronted with the policies pursued over the last few years. They say, "We have to go on living there and we know that the native problem is not solved, and unless it is solved in the right way our great-grandchildren will not survive there.
They also say, "We who are living here and developing the country and living with the people, whose proclaimed policy is that we must advance them in equal partnership with ourselves, know more how to do this than the politicians sitting at home in Whitehall." There was resentment at the attitude taken by the right hon. Gentleman who held office in the last Government, and they say that if the stranglehold of Whitehall is maintained we shall drive the African Colonies into the south and into the Union, which is the last place to which hon. Gentlemen opposite want them to go. That, in my short visit and the talks which I had, was the impression with which I came home.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend said today, that is, that he is hurrying along the process by which it is hoped that federation may be brought about with, we hope, the consent of all. I wish him well in the steps that he is taking, because, in the interests of Africa, of ourselves, of the natives and of keeping this central part of Africa as a free member of the Commonwealth, the federation proposal is the one which should go through.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Coldrick: At the risk of incurring the wrath of those who say, "another person who has had a very short visit to a colony," I must make it clear that as a member of a delegation which spent a month in these territories, I am not posing as an authority. However, I feel it is essential that one should place before the House impressions gained during such a tour.
I believe hon. Members can render a great disservice to the whole of Central Africa in general and the African people in particular by indiscreet speeches. It is an easy thing to get a completely distorted view of the kind of people who are engaged in discussing federation. My colleagues on the delegation will readily agree that, whether it was in Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland or Southern Rhodesia, we met the conception that a Fabian is a kind of vile, long-haired villain who is constantly resorting to carping criticism and obstructing the general social development of the economy. [Interruption.] That view was expressed on a thousand occasions. I am not arguing the rights or the wrongs of it.

Mr. J. Hynd: Why mention it at all?

Mr. Coldrick: If hon. Members are so touchy about this that they do not want to know other people's impressions they might at least restrain themselves and state their opinions, which I have not the slightest doubt they will do in the most vociferous way, when the opportunity presents itself. I find that their dogmatism is in inverse ratio to their knowledge of the subject. I was not suggesting for a moment that a Fabian was such a person. I am a member of the Fabian Society, and I was rather tickled that these people expressed that view.

Mr. Hynd: What people were they?

Mr. Coldrick: I cannot enumerate all the trade union organisations, trade conventions and so forth that I met. I am merely attempting to indicate that if we speak to the white people out there—I thought I made it clear that they were the white people—we can tell them that their impression of the Fabian is distorted.
On the other hand, let us be candid. Any hon. Member who does not profess

to be a colonial expert would, if he listened to some of the discourses which are delivered, conceive the impression that every white person in Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland is a villain who is not interested in anything except the exploitation of the natives. I am suggesting that it is advisable for us to be moderate in our language and factual in our observations on this subject.
Three things are badly needed before any effective development of the territory can take place. There must of necessity be an enormous expansion of transport. Anyone can see at a glance that industrial and agricultural development follows the rail or the road and it is obviously impossible to develop industry or agriculture until one has the means of transporting the products of industry and agriculture.
It becomes immediately evident that water is a precious commodity throughout the whole of the territory. The provision of water is essential, not merely for Northern Rhodesia but also for Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia. My right hon. Friend the former Colonial Secretary drew attention to fuel and power requirements. In reply to some of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), I should like to point out that what has to be considered is not whether each territory individually can develop with these facilities but whether development can be more expeditious and efficient under a centralised government.
Unless we are to embark as the British Government upon the economic development of that territory with capital provided through the Government, let us be realistic and face the fact that if the money has to be raised in the market one is much more likely to obtain favourable terms if one has a central government backed by the resources of the whole federation instead of the three territorial governments.
It is clear that the welfare of the people depends upon the wealth available to the whole of the community. Consequently, just as we lament the fact that we cannot afford this and that, in the last analysis the provision of hospitals, schools, colleges, and so on will depend upon the degree of economic development throughout the whole territory.
I believe that the people who are rendering the greatest assistance to the African are not those who merely talk about the Africans but those who teach them new techniques in production. If there went out to Africa people who knew how to teach the Africans to cooperate in producing things for themselves, such persons would render infinitely more service to the African people than do those who merely talk in an idealistic strain about what they would like to do but show no ability to do it.
I and another member of the delegation went to a place near Birchenough Bridge. It is true that the standard of living there was appallingly low. However, we found there a person who might generally be regarded as one who was out there to exploit the natives, but he was teaching them the art of soil conservation and irrigation to enable them to increase their crops. The results of this one cooperative experiment demonstrated that the African peasant could increase his output by 15 times the original amount if he adopted the right methods.
I am confident that if people of good will would go among the Africans and teach them how to grow and make things so that they could acquire our know-how and skill, we should do much to raise their economic and social level and to eliminate the colour bars which operate at present. For that reason I believe that federation is very desirable.
However, my colleagues on the delegation will agree that the white people invariably raised the question: What will be your attitude towards African opinion? I want to make it abundantly clear to the House that in the case of Nyasaland particularly—it is also largely true of Northern Rhodesia—the white people are very anxious that we should have no consultation whatsoever with the African. I think my colleagues and I made it abundantly clear that we would be no party to the imposition of these things upon them without consultation.
On the other hand, one has to have regard to the simple fact that it would be unrealistic to imagine that we have got to depend upon the complete cooperation of the Africans to bring in federation. If we think that we may as well drop the proposals, because I am

fully persuaded that the African people, though misguided, are going to fight these proposals as bitterly as it is possible to fight them. Consequently, I do not see much hope of winning their consent and co-operation.
It may be possible to persuade them to keep an open mind on the subject, but, generally speaking, without considering the proposals, they are instinctively opposed to them. This House ought to grasp the significance of this fact.
We would be labouring under a great illusion if we imagined, of course, that a refusal to adopt the proposals of federation is going to bring benefit to the African population. It has already been indicated that the alternative to federation is infinitely worse than federation itself. I have no doubt that the people in Southern Rhodesia, who are exercising a great deal of authority, have quite as much affinity with the people in the Union of South Africa as they have with a lot of people in Great Britain.
If we adopted the attitude of some people in this debate, and created the impression that the white people out there can do no good we will be creating a bitter feeling against the Colonial Office itself. Let us have no doubts on the subject, the people are blaming the Colonial Office more than they are blaming anybody else for a great deal of the trouble which they are experiencing. The danger that I see is Southern Rhodesia gravitating into the Union, and if that happens then me people of Northern Rhodesia would follow within a short space of time. In such circumstances the plight of the African people would be infinitely worse than under federation.
I would appeal to hon. Members to recognise that they are rendering no great service to the African people, sincere though they may be, if they offer as an alternative to federation the development of some complete co-operation between the ordinary Africans in Northern and Southern Rhodesia. I have been amazed to discover that a lot of the figures quoted today about exploitation apply more to Northern Rhodesia than they do actually to Southern Rhodesia.
I have no sympathy with the attitude of white people in Northern or Southern


Rhodesia who decline to give an African person the opportunity of performing work in accordance with his own ability. Let us realise that that tendency operates not merely in Southern Rhodesia but in Northern Rhodesia, and we must face up to the fact that our colleagues in the trade union movement—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly knows this quite well—particularly in the copper belt about which things have been quoted, are the greatest opponents of the ordinary African performing work which he is competent to do.
I do not want to divulge any secrets I learned in consultations with white workmen in the copper belts, but when I went down a mine and discussed these matters, one of them was candid enough to admit to me that he did not believe that he should hold a job at £100 per month unless he was very much more competent than many other people who were Africans and who could do the work if given the opportunity. These abuses a re operative in Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia, and I do not mind confessing, when I visited some of the locations in Southern Rhodesia, particularly those at Umtali and compared them with the best locations there were whether on the copper belt or any other place, I would much prefer to live in the location in Southern Rhodesia than in those in Northern Rhodesia. Let us try to look at this thing in a realistic spirit, and if we do so then it would be possible to get some degree of co-operation.
A question was put as to why it was that Southern Rhodesia does not want to come into the Union. Mr. Davonport, the Minister of Mines in Southern Rhodesia—and it is as well to recognise this—said that under the proposed constitution they were to have 35 members. It was suggested that three should be Africans from Southern Rhodesia, three from Northern Rhodesia and three from Nyasaland. Seeing that all members from Nyasaland would be nominated members, it would mean that 13 out of 35 would virtually be nominated members or members specifically there to safeguard the African interests.
He quite logically argued that if there were to be 13 concerned with African interests and groups on the other side

of eight or nine from one party and eight or nine from another—I am glad to say there are two Labour members of the Legislative Council of Southern Rhodesia now—and there was the slightest difference the nominated members would take the decision in the Council.
I do not blind myself to the fact that these people can see weaknesses in federation, and we should not be facing the facts if we were to imagine for a single moment that Southern Rhodesia is wholeheartedly in favour of these proposals. I sincerely hope it will be possible to bring in federation, but I hope that in an attempt to bring it about we shall bring the African people together and get them to realise that we want to write into it sufficient safeguards to ensure that their economic and social development will be expedited rather than retarded by the proposals.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I am pleased to think that I now have the opportunity to take part in this extremely important debate. I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick) in detail, but I should like to compliment him on what was undoubtedly a very interesting contribution and join with him in expressing the hope that no one, by unfortunate expressions, will do anything to prejudice the important decisions which we are trying to reach.
I can fairly claim that I am a frequent visitor to the great Continent of Africa and I know how far-reaching will be the effect of words spoken in this debate, not only in Central Africa but also much further afield. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that we should weigh our words very carefully today.
If I may, I should like to refer to the speech by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), because he gave us a very interesting discourse on the history which has brought us to this stage of the negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman said he would make his comments in measured terms. Every right hon. and hon. Member will agree that he kept his comments to measured terms. We are jointly trying to achieve the very proper and justifiable objective of federation of Central Africa.
On the other hand, I thought the right hon. Gentleman was making rather heavy weather when he spoke about the discussions in this country between the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and the other two Governors. I could not follow his view that it was unwise to have such obvious discussions here, because I believe that they may have a beneficial effect in the days ahead.
I am sure most hon. Members will recognise that my hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given very full answers to the points made. One of my hon. Friends referred to the fact that these decisions will seriously affect not only the Africans in Central Africa but also the British there; and I agree with him. From time to time, many of us tend to forget that the British people in those countries are often second and third generations of British people in Africa. It would indeed be unfortunate if we did not recognise that all the decisions which follow from this debate will have just as grave an effect upon our own blood brothers in Central Africa as upon the Africans themselves.
There cannot be one hon. Member who has the slightest doubt that in the years to come the Empire and Commonwealth must be the salvation of this country. This is no time to go into the details of the Empire, but anyone who studies the circumstances of this country knows that our future would indeed be short-lived without support and co-operation from the Empire. It must be the wish of every right hon. and hon. Gentleman to see that the right decision is reached about the federation of Central Africa so that it fits into the framework of the great help which we shall need from the Empire and Commonwealth in the future.
I must admit that I was confused by the remarks made by the former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. J. Dugdale). I could not tell from his argument whether he was arguing for or against federation, although I gathered, at the end, that apparently he had decided to come down against federation.
Enough has already been said by the right hon. Member for Llanelly and by my right hon. Friend about the benefits of federation. The economic benefits which federation will bring must be

obvious to us all. Behind them, moreover, lies the ultimate danger of what might eventually happen, not perhaps in the early stages but in the years to come, if federation is not achieved. The difficulty which we must face is that of trying to make clear to the Africans the benefits which federation will mean to them by comparison with what the failure to federate may mean in times ahead.
Undoubtedly, federation will be of inestimable value to the future of Central Africa—and when I say that, I sincerely believe it will be of inestimable value to the Africans themselves. The success of such a federation will obviously be felt in all other parts of Africa, too, if not throughout much of the Empire as a whole. It should, therefore, be the majority view of hon. Members that our objective must be to try to see that federation is eventually achieved. Obviously, it must be achieved with the utmost possible co-operation of all concerned. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East, quite rightly touched on the difficulties involved, particularly in persuading the Africans to understand the benefits which federation will bring to them.
Mention has been made of partnership. Of course, the desire of all of us is to see that the aims of partnership are advanced, but in trying to bring people together we must recognise that it is even difficult to bring together the Africans themselves. Often one tribe is against another, and the result is to make it difficult to bring together even those representing the Africans.
The truth is that it is wrong for anyone to pretend that we can get a proper representative opinion from the Africans today. In my submission, it is almost impossible at the moment to obtain it even in this country in local government. It is almost a miracle to get one person out of every two to go to the polls in this country to cast his vote for his representatives on the local authorities.
One could easily claim, therefore, that many of our councils sometimes do not give a properly representative view of the people. If that is the difficulty in this country, we must surely recognise that it is even more difficult to get a considered, representative opinion of the Africans. It is necessary to live in Africa and to take part in their various


activities to recognise the extreme difficulty of getting a representative African opinion.
We must be frank about this. A few Africans, who have obtained advanced education and who, in some cases, have advanced by their own personal endeavours, claim to be able to speak on behalf of large sections of the African community. In fact, they have no mandate to do so; and in many cases they attempt to do so without having had any consultation with the African people. The difficulty of getting this considered African opinion must, therefore, be recognised by us all.
It is true to say that the mere fact that the British are in Africa today enables the Africans to be better protected and better looked after, in the majority of cases, than they would be by their own representatives. I have discussed this with many Africans from time to time, and they believe that, with the British there, they can look for fairness and justice which they could not expect if the British were not in Africa, for in that case they might easily be at the mercy of people who would take advantage of them. Anybody who has tried to get businesses going out there, as I have tried to do, in partnership with Africans will remember how the finances have disappeared into a few pockets. We know that it is very difficult to expect at an early stage that just a few Africans will be able to act on behalf of all the African races.
I would sum up my speech by saying that I sincerely believe that it is almost impossible to obtain the truest African opinion which we shall need to see federation through. If we feel, as we rightly do, that federation is of benefit to the races in Central Africa, we must get the Africans to realise how valuable federation will be to them; and this must not be by-passed by any irresponsible voices who might talk against the benefits of federation. Our Government officials in Central Africa could do more to put our case to the Africans by taking the chiefs of tribes into their confidence in a more detailed way. Once the African knows the truth, the risk of his not wishing to support federation would be largely removed, particularly when he realises the safeguards that will protect him.
I have often felt that it is a great pity that colonial affairs in the House of Commons cannot be kept on the plane where we try to keep our foreign affairs. If we could discuss these matters frankly on both sides above party politics and party argument, it would be for the benefit of all concerned. We must recognise that everything we say is of such importance that every word carries its weight across the seas.
There is probably a large measure of understanding among right-thinking persons in this House who know Africa that federation for Central Africa is the wise and proper thing. We do not want it to be thought that this House is anything but in full support of federation. I have had the privilege of travelling to Africa in the company of Ministers and of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and I have always been convinced from their discussions in regard to federation that they desire to see federation in Central Africa.
Our aim, therefore, must be to see how federation can be accomplished. We have managed in today's debate to keep out of the party argument that so often arises in this House, and I believe that we have come jointly to the decision that federation is essential to the future of Central Africa. Let us, by tactful and careful handling of the situation, obtain the support of all the peoples of Central Africa, letting them feel that they can play their part in achieving the realisation of this very great object, federation in Central Africa, at the earliest opportunity.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: In the debate today it has been recognised on both sides of the House that we are discussing a very grave issue which may determine the future of nations over a great part of Africa. In my view, we are discussing something deeper than a political structure or an economic pattern. I believe that in Africa today is being decided the most fundamental of all human issues: whether human beings of different races are equal, or whether human beings of one particular race are superior to another.
The first of these views has been expressed in a classical phrase in the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations:
All persons are born equal in human dignity and rights.


The second of these views is now being expressed in the practice in certain parts of Africa where, because human beings are of a different colour or pigment than white Europeans, they are regarded as inferior. The fundamental issue we are discussing tonight is whether proposals should be applied in Central Africa which will encourage the idea of equality or encourage the idea of superiority and inferiority.
It has been urged from both sides of the House that federation is desirable in order to prevent the practices from the South African Union extending into Central and other parts of Africa. I admit at once there is a case for federation on that basis. It can be said that unless Northern and Southern Rhodesia are brought into a Central African Federation, their tendency will be to seek union with South Africa. There is one certain way of preventing Southern and Northern Rhodesia from joining the South African Union, and it is to give the African peoples of Southern and Northern Rhodesia political rights. If those political rights are given to them, the majority, we can be quite certain that those territories will never unite with the South African Union.
Why is it that the African people in these three South African territories are so determinedly in opposition to federation? It is because, in their view, this federation, instead of preventing the spread of inequality in the African Continent, will encourage it. They see already in Southern Rhodesia, and to a considerable extent in Northern Rhodesia, the very practices which we deplore in the South African Union.
They see in those territories the African reserved to certain areas. They see in those territories the African regarded as an inferior human being, who must not ride in the same railway carriage or travel in the same bus as a European. They see in those territories the African worker not regarded as an employee in a legal sense, so that he has no protection for his conditions of work. They see in those territories a domination by the white race over the African race which they fear may be extended still further to Northern Rhodesia and also to Nyasaland if federation takes place. It is for those reasons that there is an absolute unanimity of opinion

among the African population of these three territories against the proposal for federation.
I want to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and of the Minister of Commonwealth Relations to the fact that they cannot point to a single African organisation in Nyasaland, Northern or Southern Rhodesia, either official or unofficial, which has not declared its opposition to the proposal for federation. In Nyasaland there is the African National Congress which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has recognised as already influential and as a growing force.
Then there is the African Protectorate Council. Let it be remembered that both the African Protectorate Council in Nyasaland and the African Representative Council in Northern Rhodesia are composed of carefully screened Africans who are satisfactory and acceptable to the British administration. But even those screened Councils have declared their opposition to federation in the clearest terms.
In Northern Rhodesia there are two large movements of the Africans. First, there is the African Congress and, secondly, there is the trade union movement, largely led by the miners whose representatives we were so glad to welcome to this country within the last month. Both those movements, the Congress and the trade union movement, not only declared against federation but have now decided to form mass action committees to resist it.
In Southern Rhodesia, where the Government have not even permitted the Africans to be represented in these discussions on federation, there are three representative voices of the African people. The first is the Bantu Conference, which is a parallel to the African Congress in Nyasaland and in Northern Rhodesia. That has declared against federation. There is the trade union movement, the I.C.U., which has declared against federation. Perhaps what is most remarkable, when in Southern Rhodesia a chiefs council was organised, composed of men who, it was thought, would be obedient to the government there, even that council declared against federation.
Therefore, this House has to face the fact that if we impose federation upon Central Africa, it will be against the unanimous opinion of the African people as declared in all the organisations, official or unofficial, which now exist in those three territories.
When we examine these proposals we have no reason to wonder that there is this opposition on the part of the African people. Take the suggestion of a federal legislature which is made in the report of the officials' Conference. There are two objections to it. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick), suggesting that this legislature might mean that the elected representatives of Southern Rhodesia would not be able to sustain their view. In that proposed federal legislature Southern Rhodesia, with 2,100,000 people, is to have 17 representatives out of 32—

Mr. Lyttelton: Thirty-five.

Mr. Brockway: My arithmetic was wrong.

Mr. Lyttelton: No, the facts of the hon. Gentleman are wrong.

Mr. Brockway: When the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me and thought I was saying he was insincere, I corrected him at once and he accepted that correction. I tell the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall say it more strongly before I have concluded my speech, that he must recognise that those who have different points of view from him are just as sincere in the expression of those viewpoints as he is.

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member is exaggerating. He said 32 and I corrected him by saying 35. He said that was a mistake in arithmetic. It is not a mistake in arithmetic but a mistake of fact. He must not get excited.

Mr. Brockway: Very well, now the right hon. Gentleman and myself are equal. He became excited when he misunderstood what I said, and now he says I have become excited over what he said. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is all very well speaking from that Dispatch Box in the way he has done but if immediately he resumes his seat he adopts an attitude which dismisses the sincerity of what he said at that Box, we cannot pay serious attention to it.
I was saying that in the proposed federal legislature Southern Rhodesia has 17 members, Northern Rhodesia 11 members, Nyasaland, with a larger population than both, only seven members. Nyasaland has a population of 2,350,000, Southern Rhodesia 2,100,000, Northern Rhodesia 1,960,000.
That is not the only criticism of the composition of that legislature. The Africans are to have in it nine representatives for a population of 5,979,000 while the Europeans are to have 26 representatives for a population of 169,000. Worse than that, of the nine African representatives only four are to be Africans. The other five are to be Europeans selected by the European Governments. When Africans are faced with a proposal like that for a Federal Parliament, there is every reason why they should be doubtful whether they would benefit under the Federal proposal.
I am leaving on one side, because other speakers have dealt with the subject, the question of the functions of the Federal Parliament, which in my view will again and again intervene in matters which are African interests. I shall leave on one side also the questions of safeguards for the Africans, because they have been fully discussed; but there is one matter which I put very strongly to the right hon. Gentleman, and upon his answer to it will depend the vote of many Members tonight.
Is it the intention of the Government to impose federation upon Central Africa against the wishes of the African people? If that is the intention of the Government, votes will be given in the House against the right hon. Gentleman. If he makes that mistake, he will be the worst enemy to the good relations of British and African people ever to have sat upon the benches opposite.
There are six million Africans in Central Africa. By such a step as that we should be converting them from a rather touching faith and loyalty which they had in Britain as their protector, into disillusioned and antagonistic peoples. But we should do more than that. There would be not merely the six million people of the Central African countries. There is growing up in Africa a sense of solidarity between the peoples of one country and another, and we shall be losing for the good will of this country


60 million Africans whose desire is to co-operate with us but who have now reached the stage of human dignity and self-respect in which they will not be prepared to accept the intolerable proposals which have been embodied in the federal scheme.
Lord North lost this country the British Colonies. If the right hon. Gentleman attempts to push this scheme through against the wishes of the African people, he will lose us the co-operation of the African Colonies.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: The first time I ever had the pleasure of hearing the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) was when, as a schoolboy more than 20 years ago, I sat in the Gallery and listened to him speaking on India. I was struck, on that occasion, by his great gift of eloquence and his evident sincerity. The second time I heard him speak was in the first debate to which I listened as a Member of the House, and on that occasion I was profoundly impressed by what I may call the one-sidedness of his argumentation. Tonight, I have been impressed by both these characteristics of the hon. Member. I hope he will allow me to pay tribute to his eloquence, and that he will forgive me if I decline the heavy task of trying to correct the balance of his argument.
I want, at the outset, to declare an interest, in that I am associated with a company which has substantial assets in Central Africa. My reason for speaking tonight, however, is that I was one of the four Members of the House who went out to Central Africa during the Recess and had some opportunity of investigating the problem of federation on the spot.
The four of us who went out were a fairly representative cross-section of the House. We had our differences, as can be imagined, between the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), who defends agricultural interests on this side, in matters of British agriculture. But it is a remarkable fact that the four of us were able, after a very short tour, to reach a unanimous conclusion in favour of federation; and, no doubt, some hon.

Members will have read the report in which we set out that conclusion.
In that tour, we had the opportunity, as had had the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who opened the debate, of meeting a number of representatives both of the European and of the African communities. I was struck by what I might call the deep conservatism—not in a political, but in a deeper, sense—of the African peoples. They are against change of almost any kind, and I am told on good authority that when the political authority in Southern Rhodesia was transferred from the Chartered Company to the Imperial Government, there was great resistance on the part of the Africans to this change.
The right hon. Member said that the Africans are growing up. That is quite true—their development is rapid; but we must not exaggerate the speed at which it is going. During the tour I made a practice of asking servants in the houses where we stayed, porters who carried our luggage and the drivers of motor cars, what they thought of federation. I did not meet a single one who had even heard of it at that time.
The Africans are growing up, but one must not mistake adolescence for maturity. In case any of us should be tempted to make that mistake, it may be well to recall the tragic fate which recently overtook Senator Victor Biakabada a former colleague of some of us in the Inter-Parliamentary Union, who represented the Ivory Coast in the French Senate. At the last general election, as hon. Members will know, Senator Biakabada was eaten by his constituents when canvassing!
I want to take up two brief points from the speech of the right hon. Member for Llanelly. In the first, there seemed to me to be a slight contradiction in his argument as he presented it. He told us—I think it is true, and I do not dispute it—that the Africans have a deep, a touching faith in the Colonial Office and in its power to protect them. What I find harder to believe is that the mass of thinking Africans were seriously worried at the fact that there were consultations here between Sir Godfrey Huggins and representatives of that Colonial Office—that is to say, the two Governors of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia.
There is another point in the right hon. Member's speech which needs a little clearing up. He spoke of the proposals that were made at the Victoria Falls Conference for elucidating the meaning of partnership in Northern Rhodesia, and he expressed regret that more had not been done to give effect to those proposals since the Conference. I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Member, but in case some hon. Members have missed the point it is important to understand that Mr. John Moffatt, who made this proposal, has apparently been disowned by the Africans on whose behalf he spoke at the Victoria Falls Conference.
We are facing a great revolution in Africa, one of the greatest in the history of the world. The ordinary African has been taken from the bush and, in many cases, has been put into the copper mines. He has undergone an evolution greater than that which we in this country have passed through in the last 2,000 years. The African in the bush was living in conditions more primitive than those of the early Briton before Julius Caesar came to this country. The African in the copper mine is living a life not very different from that of the miners in this country in the early part of this century.
All this revolution involves inevitably tremendous problems of adjustment, enormous problems of health reflected in many endemic diseases, hookworm, malaria, and the rest of them. A great offensive has been launched to improve these problems, but it costs money. It is the same with food and diet. This demands more effective cultivation of the soil which involves the instruction of the African and the provision of proper farm implements. That, again, costs money.
Above all, there is education and the building of schools. All these things cost money. Economics are the key to the social, political and cultural advance of the African people, and, if federation will help in the economic advancement of these territories, it will be making its contribution to their social and political advance.
The anxieties of many hon. Members in connection with this scheme of federation arise from the dislike which many of us feel at the existence of the colour bar. I think it true to say that in the Central African Colonies, in Southern

Rhodesia in particular, the colour bar falls between the most developed African and the least developed European. It falls between the African whose cultural level is at its highest, who might conceivably hold the skilled job, the clerical post and the adminstrative post, and the European lowest in the scale economically. It is that which makes it such a bitter problem and such a difficult one to overcome; particularly difficult to overcome in countries which are administered so far as the European population are concerned—and I am speaking of Southern Rhodesia—by Parliamentary democratic decision.
I do not believe however that the situation in respect of the colour bar is getting worse. I do not think there is any real danger of an Apartheid as we have it in South Africa. Most of what I saw in Southern Rhodesia encouraged me to believe that the whole tendency is progressive and not reactionary. The fine secondary school built at Goromonzi is a most impressive sight. Another tremendous work is the building of hospitals in Southern Rhodesia; far finer I must say than anything I saw in Northern Rhodesia. But, of course, the maintenance of this progressive trend depends on the British element remaining strong among the European population.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly, who opened the debate, made much of the danger of immigration from the south and I do not quarrel with him over that. The only difference I would like to make is one of approach to the problem. I deprecate a negative approach to this problem of immigration. I do not think we should give the impression that we want to keep any of the Queen's subjects out of any part of her Dominions. What we should do is to show, by encouragement of this Central African federation, that we are creating conditions in which economic development will go forward quicker and encourage more people from this country to go out there and settle in the Rhodesias.
More than one hon. Member has drawn attention to some of the difficulties in the proposals put forward for federation. The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), the former Minister of State for Colonial Affairs,


spoke of the difficulty of the proposed Minister for Native Affairs. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick), spoke of the difficulties which might confront the Federation Parliament as a result of the officially nominated representation from Nyasaland. I hope that the Government will find it possible to meet the Southern Rhodesian Government to some extent upon these two issues. If they do, I equally hope that the Southern Rhodesian Government, on their side, will make concessions to opinion in this country, more particularly in respect of official recognition of African trade unions and perhaps some larger African representation in their own local Parliament.
It is a difficult problem to know which way to take this whole scheme of federation, from which side to consider it if one is to reach a conclusion and a decision. I think it was Lord Lugard who laid it down that we had a dual mandate in the Colonies. He said we had two mandates. The first was to develop their resources in the interests of this country, of the Commonwealth as a whole and of the world. The second mandate was to develop them in the interests of their own inhabitants.
We have to look beyond the local problem to some extent in endeavouring to arrive at a conclusion in this matter. We have to look even beyond the purely continental African problem. Many of us talk about the importance of preserving the influence of Britain in the modern world and making our influence felt in the councils of the world, throwing in our weight towards peace and lessening international tension, and so on. Our capacity to do that depends upon the Commonwealth being strong and, if the federation of Central Africa will help to strengthen the Commonwealth, it will help us to discharge our duty in the world as a whole.
Let us also consider the second mandate. I have no doubt, and I think it is stated freely in all parts of the House that the federation of Central Africa would foster the economic development of these territories and it would thus redound to the advantage of the Africans themselves. The question is: Will it enhance or diminish their progress to social and political advancement? I rather gathered that the right hon. Mem

ber for Llanelly shared the anxiety of Africans that their political advancement might be retarded. Perhaps I am unduly influenced in this by what might be considered a Marxist approach to the problem, but I feel that in the end it is economics which will decide.
Once we get the process of industrialisation beginning, inevitably education spreads, and once we teach people to think we cannot turn off that process of thinking like one can turn off a tap. Knowledge will spread. Political power will spread with industrial organisation; and, as both of these factors spread, inevitably the political and social influence of the African people will increase; far more, indeed, than they can increase by any process of fostering it deliberately by the Colonial Office or any paternal Government.
It is perhaps going a long way to say this, but I think that taking a broad view it is not untrue to say that the attempt to preserve the status quo by introducing a system of Apartheid is far more dangerous in the long run to the white population than to the African population. The African population may suffer some frustration from Apartheid but it will grow, socially and politically, whatever is done to encourage or impede it. I do not think, therefore, even taking the grimmest interpretation of this situation, that the introduction of federation can seriously retard African development in any way.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly said that the decision when it is taken must come by agreement with the Africans. In saying that he raised a very important point. It is, of course, absolutely essential that the Africans should have the whole scheme explained to them carefully and should be consulted at every step. The only question I would ask is whether it is altogether fair to leave the decision to them.
It has never been suggested by the present Government or the former Government that the Africans of Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland should be given the vote in their own local affairs. It has never been suggested that we should entrust to them to decide quite ordinary small problems of local politics. Yet is it to be asked that they should take the decision in a matter of such far-reaching importance to them?
The responsibility really lies in this House. If one has a son, one could ask him whether he would like to go to this school or that, but one would have to take the decision oneself. This scheme of federation may be right or wrong. I believe it to be right, but it is for this House of Commons to make up its mind whether it is right or wrong. We cannot shirk the responsibility by saying that this is to be done only by agreement.
I should have thought that we were faced with an inevitable process of economic development of Central Africa leading to an increasing white population—a white population which is still predominantly British—increasingly insistent in its demand for a greater measure of self-government. We can guide that development, but we cannot stop it, any more than we could have stopped it in the days of the revolt of the American Colonies. What we have to try to find is a compromise between the extremism of the Gold Coast and the extremism of the South Africans.
Is it possible to find it? It is something that has not been found as yet, but I should have thought that there was one hope, and that it was in the political genius of the British people, and particularly those British people living in Northern and Southern Rhodesia, who are the same people, by and large, as we are ourselves. There is a geat fund of loyalty towards this country over there. They are still very full of all the liberal principles in which we have been brought up in this country. They have confidence in us. Let us have confidence in them. It may, after all, be the last chance.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Reid: I wish to be as brief as possible, and I am not going to follow the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and others about South Africa.
I wish to say that I do not like the South African system, and that I sincerely hope that it will not spread to the rest of Africa. I wish to suggest to the people in Southern Rhodesia, especially the white people, and to the black people in the other two territories, that the South African system in the days to come may well extend to their territories. If they

will take this fine suggestion of having federation of their territories, then there is the possibility of avoiding a situation which none of us, on both sides of the House, wants to see come about in the future.
I regret very much that the suggestion made after the Victoria Falls Conference for a discussion on partnership between all the races concerned did not take place. The Colonial Secretary told us today why it did not take place, but all I can say is that I regret that it did not. The best way to initiate procedure on a tangled problem like this is to have a discussion on the spot with the people to be ruled, and, unfortunately, that did not take place.
I am glad to learn from the Colonial Secretary today that he has invited the African people concerned, who did not discuss partnership on the spot, with others, to come to London before the conference in April to discuss the subject of partnership here. I think that is absolutely necessary, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and the Governors of the other two territories were invited when the coloured people were not invited at the same time. I hope that the new suggestion of bringing African delegates here will be successful.
The Colonial Secretary himself said there was difficulty in dealing with the suggestion because there was no definite text. I quite understand that difficulty, but there is another difficulty in having a text before this partnership system was discussed at length. The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) quite rightly said that the natives of South Africa are very conservative people. They have been for years resisting, in one way or another, the impact of white civilisation upon them. When a text of a proposal comes out, their first natural reaction is to reject it and find every possible fault with it. That is the disadvantage of having a text before we discuss the principles of partnership. There are difficulties either way, but, in the present stage, as things now are, I quite agree that it is necessary to have a text.
It has been said from various parts of the House that, up to date, there has been


practically complete African opposition to this proposed federation. I have for many years lived and worked with coloured people, and I cannot remember an instance in my life when a new idea was brought forward, especially by white Government officials, which was not resisted at the outset I will give examples.
In a big city in the East, the proposal was introduced to have a drainage system both for rain water and sewage and the uproar was immense. The word went round that the European Government was introducing a new system which would spread the plague all over the city, and huge processions were formed in which the people shouted, "We do not want the water scheme; it will bring the plague."
I will give another example. I was mixed up in it myself. The methods of washing clothes were, to say the least, insanitary, so the corporation of the big city introduced a wonderful system of cleaning the clothes by washing them, not in the elaborate laundries of the West, but with a combination of the native system brought up to sanitary standards. The authorities thought that it might go through, and the first laundry was built. There was a strike and the washermen were out on strike for six months. At last, they repented and terms were made, the laundry was re-opened and began to work. I remember saying to a member of the council on the day on which the row was settled, "I bet you that before the end of the year we shall have requests for laundries from all over the city," and it turned out to be correct.
I would therefore ask my hon. Friends not to be alarmed by the fact that there is opposition to this system at first. It is the usual course of events when a white Government makes propositions to coloured peoples.
Now, I want to address my remarks to those people in Africa who will be called upon to make the decision in this matter, not only the Africans, but also the whites in Southern Rhodesia. There are extremists in both parties, and I ask them to reflect on this. It is obvious from today's debate that the majority of hon. Members in this House are in favour of this system of federation. We may differ on the details, but most, if not all, of us are in favour of it.
I would ask our good friends overseas who are British subjects or British protected persons what is to happen if they, whites or blacks, turn this system down. Whatever Government was in power, when they reached a deadlock between the people in those territories and the Government at home, the proposition to the Government at home would be "We do not want this system. Do nothing without our permission, but do whatever we want."
Can that go on indefinitely? That deadlock should be avoided by a compromise between this Government and the peoples concerned in Africa and in the other territories concerned. It will be disastrous for everyone concerned in Southern Rhodesia and the other territories if this scheme does not now go through.
I will give an historical instance of the same sort of thing. During the period of office of the Labour Government, we sent a committee to India to try to settle the row between the Hindus and the Moslems. I know that country very well, and that committee put forward a solution which was wise, reasonable and sensible from every point of view, namely, federation of the whole of India.
I know there were difficulties and that people feared there would be Hindu-Moslem tension, but I knew, on the other hand, that if there was partition of India blood would flow as it did, and that there would be an appalling disaster. The Labour Government proposed a solution and did everything possible to get the Hindus and Moslems to agree to a federation of India. That was rejected. The only thing left for the British Government to do was to quit. They had to quit. They had failed. Their suggestions were rejected. I pray to God that the people concerned with these three territories will not adopt the same attitude as that adopted by the people of India just because the former are divided on racial lines instead of on religious lines.
This is one of the most important matters that has come before this House. It affects not only these territories, but the whole of Africa. This proposal has been endorsed by practically every Member of this House, and it is useless for the Africans or the white people there to say that we are their enemies. We are not we only want a reasonable settlement of


this question in the interests, above all, of the people directly concerned.
I want to address a few other remarks to the people who might reject this solution. The day of small States is over, and I would ask the people of Africa not to be too parochial and to reflect that this problem of theirs affects not merely the three States concerned, but other States in the world. The populations of these States are extremely small, and they are utterly unable to defend themselves. Are they, white or black, going to quarrel with the British Government who have defended them and thus bring about a deadlock?
Economically, it would be an immense advantage to have these three territories united in a federation. Owing to the rapid growth of population in these territories there is the danger of famine in years to come. That being so, we want to produce the food and other wealth required to raise the economic standard of these countries and that can best be done by federation.
As I say, the day of the small State is over. We had a recent example of this in the Commonwealth itself. It was the case of Newfoundland. One party strongly opposed going in with Canada which was able to provide enormous capital for the development of Newfoundland. They preferred to be first in a little Iberian village than to be second in Rome. The federation came about and there was great progress in Newfoundland thereafter. That territory has lost nothing by becoming a part of the Dominion of Canada. Therefore, I ask our fellow subjects in Africa to pause and think what would be the result if they rejected this scheme.
As regards political advancement, it Is up to the parties concerned to see that the prerequisites of that are embodied in the constitution. We do not know the text of the constitution proposed. The Colonial Secretary is getting it framed, but it is before it is actually framed that all the people concerned should see that there are clauses in it which enable them to progress politically. I would tell my friends in Central Africa that if they are going to run these three territories on racial lines they are on the high road to disaster. If, on the other hand, they combine and work together, then political

advancement can come much more quickly provided the constitution is properly drafted.
I do not want to draft the constitution here today, although I have had some experience of such drafting, but I would mention one thing. The colour bar which exists in South Africa must not, of course, appear. There is no legal colour bar in Southern Rhodesia, although it is idle to assert that it does not in fact exist. There is a property qualification for the franchise which excludes most Africans. I think the idea that only those who have a stake in the country may vote is completely unsound. The people with a stake in the country are generally well able to protect themselves. Such a system is antiquated and out of date. I hope that no such system will be established under this new constitution, at least not in the two northern territories.
In my opinion, there should be no colour bar about the franchise. It may have to be limited owing to the ignorance of some of the people, but the test must then be education. If that is the test, then any native will have the same right as any European of entering the legislature. That would be the best safeguard of all for the native people. Once people get the vote they gradually learn how to protect their interests.
Cecil Rhodes, whose name was mentioned today, laid down the maxim of equal rights for all civilised men. So the test for the franchise should be education, not property. There should be no colour bar of any description in the two northern territories, and I would advise my African friends to see to that when the constitution is being drafted. I suggest to people who want to work on the racial band wagon that it is no use.
In the case of Ceylon, we had the problem of the Tamils and the Singhalese and of two or three other races as well. It was predicted that they would not work together. There was also a lot of religious feeling and language difficulty among them. The constitution rejected communal elections, and allowed everyone to vote freely in geographical units. The result is that some of the Ministers are Tamils, some are Singhalese, and others, again, belong to other races. That is the only way of finding a solution.
Central African countries are different from the Gold Coast where Europeans cannot settle down and rear families because the climate is against their doing so. But in these three countries the Europeans can bring up families and do physical work. It is no use anyone saying they have got to quit. They have gone there and developed the country, and they have a perfect right to be there. So have the Indians and the native people of the country. They have all got to live together. But they cannot live together in harmony or prosperity if they go on practising racial politics.
I suggest to my friends in South Africa, both white and coloured, that they should not throw away the opportunity which is going to be put before them by the Colonial Secretary before fully considering all its implications. This matter is too serious for emotional hysterics. I certainly hope that the scheme will go through and that it will be an example to the whole of Africa of how people of different races can live and work together in harmony.

8.20 p.m.

Sir Peter Macdonald: This is not a new subject for me, because for the last quarter of a century, ever since I visited Central Africa, it has been obvious to me that one day a closer integration of these three territories, Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, should come about. I have expressed that view on more than one occasion in this House and it is very gratifying for me today, after so long a time, to find so much accord on both sides of the House on this subject.
It was obvious to me that it must come about, for one of these territories alone could not carry out the social, political and economic development necessary to maintain a growing population. When we restored law and order in these territories and set up the British way of life and government, it was obvious that steps should be taken immediately to bring about as rapid an economic development as possible because the population was bound to increase. That is exactly what has happened. Having restored law and order and established health services in these territories, we find a very rapidly growing native population and a growing European population too, but with

economic development not proceeding as rapidly as it should be.
It is obvious, therefore, that these three territories, whose interests are complementary, should be developed together. Southern Rhodesia has a beautiful climate with ample mineral resources and not enough capital to produce the required developments in irrigation schemes, hydro-electric schemes, railways, hospitals and schools. Transport has already been mentioned as a matter of vital interest to Southern Rhodesia. More than anything else, the lack of transport has held up development in Central Africa.
Northern Rhodesia has a virile population, too, who are proud of their country and are anxious to establish a British and Christian way of life. They, too, are hampered by lack of capital to develop their natural resources and to provide transport, irrigation, hydro-electric schemes and social services.
Last of all there is little Nyasaland, which is the most backward of the three. That backwardness has been largely responsible for the fact that this House has not taken sufficient interest in that territory in the past and has not encouraged its development.
It is vitally important, therefore, that these territories which are complementary and interdependent should form some kind of integration. There is more accord in this House than I have ever seen before on this subject, in spite of one or two discordant notes, especially from the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), who always tries to throw a spanner into the works. He gives no support at all to these proposals, but I hope he will be proved to be wrong.
A great deal has been said about African opinion. What is African opinion and what is it based upon? The only opinion worth listening to at all is informed and representative opinion. What does the African opinion we have discussed today represent and how far is it informed? I contend that the Victoria Falls Conference broke down because enough time and trouble was not taken by the then Government to inform African chiefs and people in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia of the nature of the proposals.
Until some definite constitution is put before these people it is impossible for them to have an informed opinion. That is why I think the Colonial Secretary is absolutely right in holding this conference as soon as possible and in having a conference with Africans first so that they shall be told what the proposals are. Let them then form their judgment and do not let us have introduced sentiments like those of the hon. Member who represents the backward races of Eton and Slough and who seems to have his spiritual home in cuckoo land.

Mr. Sorensen: Representative Africans are coming over here before the contemplated April conference. If they hear the proposals and turn them down, will the hon. Member dismiss them as unrepresentative?

Sir P. Macdonald: Not at all, if they are representative. But first of all we must examine their bona fides. No doubt they will be inquired into by the Secretary of State to see whether they are representative people. I am pretty sure that when they see the proposals as suggested here today and when all their fears about their future status are allayed, they will accept them.

Mr. Sorensen: And if they are not accepted?

Sir P. Macdonald: If they are not, then we shall still have to go forward with these proposals. It is the duty and responsibility of this House to govern the territories or to get out. I am convinced that in that case Southern Rhodesia will probably demand Dominion status outright or will join the Union.

Mr. Hector Hughes: What the hon. Member is saying seems contradictory. Does he not realise that the most fundamental, urgent and essential feature of this problem is to secure and maintain the confidence of the African people themselves?

Sir P. Macdonald: Yes. That is why, as I said, the late Government, having agreed on principle to these proposals, should have taken more trouble to explain what the proposals were both to white and coloured Africans. That did not happen, and that is why the Victoria Falls Conference failed. The same thing must not happen again.
We must have definite proposals, and they must be in such form that they can be understood, and opportunities must be given to the people who represent African opinion. It must be remembered that there are two African opinions and, if one goes out there to work—and I commend some hon. Members to go—one gets opinions on both sides. There is the opinion of the white African settler which is given in no uncertain terms, as one hon. Member told us tonight, that they thought that certain people in this House who talk about Africa did not know the first thing about it.
I can assure hon. Members that these white Africans have just as much right as anybody else to be in Africa, because they have been there in some cases for three or four generations and it is their only home. They are the people who have developed the country. It is only 50 or 60 years ago that Africans were slaughtering and eating each other. Progress in that part of the world has been more rapid than anywhere else.
The white settler who has been out there since 1914—who settled there just after the First World War—and a great many who were there before, some of them for two or three generations, resent very much being ignored when opinions about Central Africa are canvassed. They feel very strongly about it, and their views about this House and certain people in it they do not hesitate to express. They do not hesitate to express the view that unless federation is brought about in Central Africa other means will be found of breaking away from Whitehall.

Mr. J. Hynd: What other means?

Sir P. Macdonald: They can go into the Union or demand complete Dominion status, and they will do that. That is what we must avoid, and that is the thing which I do not think anybody in this House would desire.
I do urge the right hon. Gentleman to press on with these proposals to frame his constitution and bring the people responsible for carrying it out into contact at the earliest possible moment so as to arrive at the stage—I hope it will be soon—when he can set up a Royal Commission composed of all parties in this House to frame a constitution. I am convinced that if we lose this opportunity


to bring about federation of Central Africa it will never occur again, and that would be greatly to the discredit of this House and disastrous for our territories in Central Africa.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I am very glad to have been called, if only because I am one of those Fabian crackpots with long hair who have been so described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick), and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald). We on this side of the House have been chided both by our colleagues and by hon. Members opposite for defending and putting the point of view of the African people. Who is there to speak for the Africans but hon. Members of this House? I wish we had some African Members in this House, though I hope they would escape the fate which the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery), mentioned when he said that the French Member for the Ivory Coast had been eaten by his constituents a short while ago.
There are many on the benches opposite who can speak for white settlers in Kenya, Nyasaland and other territories so I think it is in order for people on this side of the House, including the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) to speak up on behalf of these 60 million people in the dark Continent of Africa.

Sir P. Macdonald: Does the hon. Member mean to insinuate that hon. Members on this side of the House have no interest at all in Africans?

Mr. Johnson: They have a lot of interest in the Africans, but it is not quite the same interest as we have on this side of the House.
There is a much more serious thing than that, the importance of which I think it is impossible to exaggerate. Apart, perhaps, from the problem of the relations of the Soviet Union with the Western world, there is no other question so important as the subject of colour in Africa. It is a fact that the Africans are lined up solidly against this scheme of federation—at least as they know it at the moment. In the final analysis, the only test of fitness for any post in African affairs should be that of character and ability and, perhaps, a sense of respon

sibility to take on that post. That is the only test for fitness for office, whether it be for the post of Director of Health in Nigeria or the Inspector of Works in Nyasaland, whatever be the colour of his skin.
I know that this is a counsel of perfection and that we cannot expect the elimination of the colour bar for some time. The Africans in Nyasaland and elsewhere are lined up solidly against the federation proposals as they know them. What is the reason? Apparently they are adamant in this matter. Why, as we have been told tonight, are they actively contemplating industrial action in the Copper Belt of Northern Rhodesia? Before I come to that, let me say that, having listened over a period of months to the arguments for federation, both by the predecessor of the Colonial Secretary and by many others, I am in favour of federation if we can carry the Africans with us.
I believe it would be excellent for all concerned to have a viable unit. This is a land-locked territory without one port on the coast. Its communications need to be opened up and it needs economic exploitation on a colossal scale. Wankie coal must be married to copper in the North. We want these things, but we must carry the native population with us in this matter.
I want to emphasise what other Secretaries of State have emphasised: that is, that there must be an economic and political partnership between Europeans and Africans; because this is the only policy under which federation can be brought about in the condition of Central Africa. Any scheme of closer association would have to give effect to that principle. How does one define partnership? I find it impossible and I should hate to attempt to define it. I would sooner speak of co-operation, and if we speak of co-operation instead of partnership, in what form is it acceptable to the Africans?
When one speaks to them when they come over here—the miners' leaders and many others—have talked to us in this House and outside—they say that all members should enjoy full political and economic equality. They should take part in the life of their country unrestricted by questions of race. What


prospect is there of this being acceptable to the Europeans? When I look at the happenings of the last 28 years, in places like Salisbury and Buluwayo and elsewhere, I see a long series of enactments effected by European Parliaments which do not lead me to think that this is the kind of political climate in which one will find Europeans accepting this definiton.
If one takes one of the Amendments to the Representation of the People Act of 1950; it has been said earlier tonight that there are not many constituents of hon. Members of this House who can find what the African has to find in Southern Rhodesia. The African has to have £500 worth of real estate or assets, plus an income of £250 a year. That is a lot to expect of an African in Southern Rhodesia.
There are other examples—land tenure and many others. I would not call this Apartheid, but, clearly, there is a colour bar and to my mind there is definite evidence of a policy of racial segregation. If that is not Apartheid, it is well on the way towards it and will go further on the journey, if the immigration figures over the last year or two, with the immigration of Afrikaaners, persist.
Some years ago, Sir Godfrey Huggins spoke about removing Africans from the common electoral roll. Perhaps the Commonwealth Relations Office spoke to him, and certainly the 1950 Act gave the Africans some privileges, even although the qualifications are to my mind heavy and onerous. This is one way of restricting the number of Africans who get on to the common roll. It seems queer that any well-wisher of the Africans should desire to extend the number under Sir Godfrey Huggins from one and a half million Africans to six million Africans. White leaders like Sir Godfrey Huggins pay lip service to partnership, but they are opposed to it when it becomes inconvenient. A similar situation exists in Northern Rhodesia. We have unofficial members of the Executive Council who form literally, and in the event actually, a cabinet in a responsible Government.
We have had earlier quotations from the speeches of the leader of the un-officials, Mr. Welensky—and I will not give them again—but I should like to give the answer to them as made by the leader

of the Africans, and as reported in the "Northern Rhodesia News" of 19th April, 1950. This was a speech of Mr. Gordon Lewanika, who is President of the North Rhodesian African Congress—and this is the outlook not merely of 19,000 miners in the African Copper Workers' Union but probably of one and a half million behind him. The quotation reads:
In his speech Mr. Welensky revealed his immigration policy in order to expedite self-government in Northern Rhodesia. Mr. Welensky, of course, means self-government for the Whites only…He fears that when Africans are educated and civilised enough the Colonial Office would hand over the government of the country into their hands, therefore, he wants to take us by surprise and unconditionally before we reach maturity…
We do not care about the great wealth that the desired self-government may bring to Northern Rhodesia. What we mind most is the ownership of our land, not wealth or the erection of several skyscrapers and paved glittering roads all over Northern Rhodesia. We are satisfied with and have great faith in the Colonial Office Rule.
That is an African speaking. That was not a white man speaking and describing the Colonial Office as a stranglehold upon their white activities.
I hope I have been fair in quoting from the context. Certainly, I have been fair to Mr. Welensky, because he has made many other speeches on the same theme and on the same lines. Is it any wonder that Africans view with suspicions proposals which would place them under the domination of gentlemen like Sir Godfrey Huggins and Mr. Welensky? They are not tempted by constitutional safeguards, nor by economic advantages. They wish to live their own lives, or as much of their own lives as they can, in their own country and on their own land.
As the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight told us, Nyasaland is the most resolute of all. They have something like 2½ million Africans and 3,000 whites.

Sir P. Macdonald: Civil servants.

Mr. Johnson: They may be civil servants. I do not see how any Government can impose federation upon 21 million Africans in a land where there are only 3,000 whites, if the Africans are opposed to such federation. Nor can it be imposed in Northern Rhodesia, where the figures are something like these: 1,600,000 Africans, 32,000 Europeans and


2,800 Asiatics. Here the Africans oppose federation just as resolutely. Equally, I feel we must not impose it upon them.
May I here quote from another famous leader, Sir Miles Thomas. I have here the "Southern Rhodesia News Letter" for 16th January this year, and I will read what Sir Miles says about federation—and I echo and I support every word he says, with the substitution of only one word:
Clearly, federation is an economic necessity. Once a broad principle of this sort is recognised it would be a tragedy if mere political considerations were allowed to be major obstacles. The mineral wealth of Northern Rhodesia can be allied to agricultural potentiality and the secondary industries of Southern Rhodesia, and these together with the virility and enterprising outlook of the people would provide a promising future. The sooner federation comes about the better for all concerned and the more effective will be the efforts against the attempted infiltration of Communist ideologies in the Central African territories.
I would change only one word; it should be not "Communist" but "Fascist." I believe that the danger is not Communist infiltration, but Fascist infiltration from the South over the Limpopo into the Southern Rhodesian territories. The danger, I feel, is from the South; it is not from Moscow, it is from Johannesburg. I speak advisedly tonight. The atmosphere in Africa is not merely charged and surcharged; it is supercharged with emotion, because the shadow of Malan is not merely over Southern Rhodesia, but it extends much further north to Nairobi and even beyond the Nile Valley.
I could quote from Mr. Foster Dulles speaking about the Union, when he spoke about the keg of dynamite which would perhaps blow up the African society. I could quote many authorities about the danger of this Fascist infiltration into Southern Rhodesia.
Is Central Africa much better than the Union? People say it is very much better, but may I make one comment? I have spent much of my time in education. When I look at Central Africa, it is a shocking thing to me to find that in 50 years of British Government or domination not one African has been in a major post in the Civil Service. There are Africans in important posts in West Africa, in Nigeria and on the Gold Coast, but we have not a major post in Central Africa filled by an African. It is because of the mixed society—the

plural society. I would say that the fact that there are whites in East and Central Africa has meant that the development of the African peoples has been held back, as compared with that in West Africa, where there is a predominantly black society.
We have heard talk tonight about the intelligentsia and of the people who actually speak on behalf of the Africans. We have heard talk as though there were just a few people on the stage, and shadowy masses of people who will never appear—never be developed. I think there are many more than 19,000 miners in the Copper Belt—many more than that; and if anyone wishes to have some idea of the urgency of the situation, let him look at the editorial of the "Manchester Guardian" yesterday. Lord Curzon once said that people prefer to govern themselves badly than have other people govern them, however well.
My last point is this. We have heard a great deal tonight from the benches opposite, and even from these benches, about the giving of federation to Central Africa, and it is almost a form of political blackmail that we have heard from benches on both sides of the House. It is this: "If you do not give self-government or federation to these three territories in Central Africa, they will hive off or fall off or go south to the Union and join South Africa."
Is it quite so simple as that? If Sir Godfrey Huggins and the white leaders do not desire to have Afrikaaners, they can quite simply—because they have almost Dominion status—make immigration laws to keep out the Afrikaaners—quite easily. Very soon, with the consent of this Government and this House, they could achieve full Dominion status. They have that almost now.
Time is getting late in this matter. It is almost 12 o'clock now. The clock has almost struck, and I feel that a full statement should be made by the Government that talks between Africans and Europeans regarding partnership will be begun at the earliest possible moment. I think they should not have this conference in April, but hold fast to the original resolution that we had, that the conference be held in July.
I beg of them not to go headlong into this particular action they contemplate,


and to pay particular attention to the views of these coloured peoples in Africa. I beg them not to force federation upon those African peoples, as seems to be the view expressed so often tonight by hon. Members on the benches opposite.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and, before him, the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) have not realised that the logical consequence of the policy and point of view which they have expressed is to condemn the Africans to permanent inferiority to the Europeans, because there is no shadow of doubt that, however much we may talk about education and social progress for Africans, there can be no education in the real sense of the term, and no social progress, unless that can be provided against a background of economic strength.
Personally, I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Rugby saying that, while he agreed with the economic advantages that would come from federation, he was not prepared to press them upon his African friends unless they themselves were prepared to accept them.
Earlier in the debate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) put two names before the House; names which, even today, create a sense of inspiration, and a memory of two great lives—Rhodes and Livingstone. Let us not forget that it was Livingstone himself who, first of all, invited this country to undertake white European settlement in Africa and to apply the resources of this country to the improvement of the conditions of life of the people.
I am quite certain that if today the two men who played such a great part in the founding of British Central Africa were alive—Rhodes and Livingstone—both of them would be in favour of this project of federation. I think that it is the only way in which we can ensure, not only for the Europeans in Central Africa but also for the Africans as well, improvement of the standard of living, without which the ideals of the great

Christian missionary movements in African history and the whole of the principles and hopes of British colonial policy for Africa could not be brought to fruition.
It seems to me that there is a clear issue before the House. It is whether we in this Parliament are to take the responsibility for making a decision which we are entitled to make as trustees for the African people. It is not right for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that we are not entitled to make a decision without first getting the consent of the Africans.
We must consult them, that is perfectly true, but we are under an obligation to act in good faith; and if it is the view of the House that federation is an advantage to Central Africa, then surely we are under a moral obligation to make that decision and to stand by the consequences. I have no doubt that if we fail to make that decision we shall be betraying the trust which the Africans have placed in us over the last 50 years.
It is no good our trying to push off our responsibilities on to African shoulders. It is no good the hon. Member for Rugby telling the House that the Africans are perfectly happy to go on in their own primeval way. If we had asked the Africans 50 years ago, they would have said that they preferred beyond anything, if they were Matabele or Masai, to go on with the old slave raiding and tribal warfare of the past. That is surely not the sort of considerations that we in this Imperial House of Commons can accept in dealing with this matter.
Therefore, in the short time in which I have an opportunity of intervening in this debate, I should like to try to the best of my ability to assure those hon. Members who have been here today that unless we in this House are prepared to undertake the responsibility which the history of our people places on our shoulders at the present time, the burden of the failure and of the poverty and despair which will face Africa, and from which we have in so short a time at any rate partially rescued her, will rest very heavily on the shoulders of the people of Britain and no less on the shoulders of the hon. Members here who came to an adverse decision on this matter.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) that it would be very hard to exaggerate the importance of the subject we have been debating today. It is about a very great British responsibility, and I feel that I must, therefore, say that I believe it was a great pity that Sir Godfrey Huggins thought it necessary to make some disparaging remarks about the capacity of most of the Members of this House to discuss this sort of thing. I am a friend of Sir Godfrey, who is a very outspoken man, and I am sure that he will not mind my saying that I think that that was a very unfortunate thing to say, and I hope that he regrets having said it.
We certainly have a very high duty to fulfil in this House in this matter, and we have shown in this debate that the House is fully capable of discussing this important matter in the way in which it ought to be discussed. We have had, incidentally, two very good maiden speeches from either side of the House, one from the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) and the other from my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), who spoke from his own experience.
To start with a word or two about my own attitude, I think this is an extremely difficult and complex problem. It is very hard in itself. It is a problem in which all the problems of Africa meet, and anything that one does or says can have repercussions all over that difficult and dangerous continent.
I have always approached, and still approach, the problem with a certain humility. It is very hard indeed to be certain that anything that one believes in this matter is bound to be right. I certainly agree with the principle of federation and the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that this is quite clear from the Victoria Falls communiqué to which I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) put our names.
As I shall try to show, I think it is very important indeed that we do the sort of things which make federation possible. One cannot, of course, believe in a principle in the air. There are a number of absolute conditions which go with the acceptance of the principle of federation

in one's own mind, and the first is that we must carry the co-operation and the good will of all communities and people concerned.
Secondly, it follows that in any schemes we must have absolutely firm and clear guarantees on African rights and interests. Thirdly, we must have very wide and careful handling of these problems, particularly from the British Government of the day. I have had very grave doubts about the handling of this problem by Her Majesty's present advisers—naturally, I do not have any doubts about the previous Government—and my doubts have not been allayed, but rather have been increased by what was said by the Minister this afternoon.
I want to say a word about the main reasons why I am in favour of the principle of federation. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) that economic considerations, although they are very important, are not the decisive considerations in this connection. The main reason that predisposes me to accept and support the principle of federation is set out in the communiqué issued after the Victoria Falls Conference, where it refers to the great importance of maintaining and strengthening the British connection, traditions and principles. It is very important to point out that that is a part of the communiqué on which the African delegates and all others were agreed.
It seems to me that, in the context with which we are dealing, the maintenance of the British connection, traditions and principles is absolutely essential to the success of the policy towards Africans in which we believe. The two things are completely tied up together. If the British connection were weakened, or replaced, the whole of the policy towards Africans in which we believe would be entirely undone. I do not believe—and this is what convinces me that federation is right in principle—that we can permanently maintain the British connection and traditions in the whole of this area without federation. It is a great error to assume that the British connection will continue there by itself regardless of what we do.
In this matter the position of Southern Rhodesia is absolutely central to the problems that we have to face. It is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby


(Mr. J. Johnson) said, just a question of immigration. Although immigration is very important—my right hon. Friend gave some very disturbing figures—it is not the decisive matter. The really decisive matter is that Southern Rhodesia is not a permanently viable unit on its own. It cannot stand on its own indefinitely, independently of everything else. It is not big enough or rich enough and it is land-locked, and in the end—it may not be such a long time off—it will have to join a bigger unit either to the north or to the south, for there are no other alternatives.
No one who has recently been to Southern Rhodesia, as I have, can doubt that this is a danger, but I do not think it is an immediate danger, for the British connection is very strong in Southern Rhodesia. However, there is also a strong and growing undercurrent of feeling in Southern Rhodesia that it is not large enough and that it will be compelled to join a bigger group one way or the other.
It is not by any means only the Afrikaans element in Southern Rhodesia that desires a movement to the south and joining with the Union of South Africa. There are many British in Southern Rhodesia who have the same view or fears about it; certainly very many Africans in Southern Rhodesia are alarmed at the prospect, which they take as a serious one, of Southern Rhodesia going sooner or later southwards and becoming part of the Union of South Africa. Which way Southern Rhodesia goes, whether it goes north or south, may shape the whole future of Central Africa, and it may determine the survival of the British connection and interest in Central Africa and the policies towards Africans that go with it.
If the southern frontier of British Central Africa becomes the Zambesi instead of the Limpopo, it would involve a major shift of power and a balance of policies in the heart of the Continent of Africa, and I would not be quite sure that we could hold the southern frontier of British Central Africa at the Zambesi, so that our connections, traditions and principles, to use the words in the Victoria Falls communiqué, would be in danger in the whole of this area.
I do not think that this is the only factor to take into account, but I say

that it is an essential factor to bear in, mind. It is the one in this very complex technical problem that has weighed very heavily with me in helping me to decide that the principle of federation is the right policy, but to complete this argument I must be frank and say something with which some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House will not agree. What I am saying depends on the recognition that the Southern Rhodesians' native policy is not only different from our policy in the territories to the north, as it certainly is, but it is also different from the native policies to the south in the Union of South Africa. I base that on a number of arguments, some of which seem to me to be decisive.
When I was last in Southern Rhodesia, I met a great many Africans at meetings and in private calls, and I found that many of them were aware of the danger that Southern Rhodesia might go into. South Africa. All, without exception, were against it on the ground that the native policies were quite different. They were not supporting the policy towards. Africans in Southern Rhodesia, but they were clear that the policies were quite different and were far worse in the Union. I agree with the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) that what I am saying remains true only as long as the British connection and influence prevail in Southern Rhodesia.
I do not want to go into the economic arguments which a number of hon. Members have talked about. I think that the economic arguments in favour of federation are very strong indeed. I only want to deal with one aspect, which relates to what I have been saying about the economic problem; that is, that whereas these territories at the moment are very prosperous, they have a very precarious economy. I think it is especially true of Southern Rhodesia, and because of the office which I held in the late Government I know more about it. The prosperity and economy of Southern Rhodesia depends on very few crops and products indeed. Tobacco, chrome and asbestos are the three. It is a very narrow and unreal basis for an economy, for an economy with few crops is very susceptible to the effects of a slump.
What alarms me about the situation from the economic point of view is that if there were a slump it would un


doubtedly greatly increase the chances of Southern Rhodesia going southward, if it had not already gone in that direction. It would have behind it the tremendous desire to find a better based market to which it could attach itself in time of slump. It would affect perhaps only one crop or product, but it would affect practically everybody in the country, and reduce them from the prosperity they now enjoy to a poverty which most of them have never known in Southern Rhodesia. Therefore, I would conclude from that one economic aspect of the problem that it would be a mistake to regard the problem as static. The problem, moving into the future, can create changes in the economic position, such as slumps in certain types of produce, which would have a great effect in changing the general political situation.
Because of these reasons, and of other reasons with which I will not weary the House, I am in favour in principle of federation, but because I am very fearful of the consequences of failure, which would be very grave, I have been extremely disturbed by today's debate. The Government have given the impression that they have greatly increased the already very great difficulties that attach themselves to this problem. I must say that they have shown a very grave failure—the right hon. Gentleman has shown it today in what he has said to us—to take the vital factor of African opinion into proper account.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly described to the House the way in which the very solid African opposition in the Northern Territories and in Southern Rhodesia views these proposals of federation and the very dangerous situation that exists, at any rate in the Copper Belt. In this situation—whatever view one may take about whether this House must decide or they must decide—all must agree that we should carry African opinion with us if we possibly can.
At such a moment as this, the problem needs very sympathetic and very wise handling, to find ways by which disturbed African opinion can be reassured. This debate offered a very great chance to the Government to send a message to Africa which would have given reassurance to the Africans in the doubts which they have entertained as the result of certain actions in recent months.
It did not seem to me that the right hon. Gentleman was appreciating the real nature and importance of African opinion. It is quite true that African opinion on these matters is not always reasonable, as we interpret the word "reasonable." Some of the Africans, many of them—I found it so out there, talking to them—will not look at the proposals and are unaware of safeguards of great importance that exist in the proposals. I agree with Mr. Moffatt, a very great friend of the Africans, that it would be much in their own interest for them to make more positive proposals in this whole field of federation.
We have to accept things as they are. These fears may not be reasonable or logically defended, but they are real. They spring from fears, doubts and suspicions connected with land and all sorts of things that are not really, as we see them, immediately connected with the problem in hand but they are real. We say that this reality must be taken seriously. It is no good saying that it is not reasonable or logical. The position of my right hon. Friends and myself is that we must carry African opinion with us if we are to go forward with federation. That is the essential point of departure.
Our complaint is that the right hon. Gentleman has done, and has tonight said, things that create a suspicion, rightly or wrongly, in African minds, and creates it as a reality, that there is a white man's plot to railroad this federation scheme through. Now I will produce the reasons why I hold that view.
First, let me deal with what we seem to have agreed to call the April conference. I think it was a great blunder to advance the date of the conference from July to April. At the Victoria Falls Conference it was agreed by all, including all the African delegates there, to have it in mid-summer and we all understood that meant July or August. Having had agreement on this, to change it without consulting Africans, and as far as one can discover without informing any Africans, must create the impression that there is something up. It is calculated to create the impression that there is a deliberate rushing of policy remembering that East Africans are very suspicious of the thing being hurried through.
The right hon. Gentleman said he needed the April conference in order to get a detailed plan, so that public opinion could be focused on a definite scheme, and that in its absence all sorts of rumours and ideas would get about. I can certainly see the force of that argument and I can see why it appeals to the right hon. Gentleman, but it seems to me to show a wrong approach to the entire problem of the attitude of the Africans in this matter. The details of a definite scheme cannot be treated alone and in isolation. One cannot discuss this constitution in isolation from many other things if we are to treat the problem of federation as a real one.
The principle of federation must be accepted before details can be discussed. It is a perfectly sensible position that we and many Africans take, namely, that before getting down to details there must be an agreement on principle. The right hon. Gentleman is really putting this the wrong way up. It is no good saying that we must get detailed plans and not worry about the principle, because one cannot discuss detailed plans until there is an agreement on principle.
There is something else which is important. The Africans will not consider discussion or acceptance of the principle of federation, it is clearly stated in the communiqué, without some tangible signs of advance in their present political and social status. Therefore, the question of getting precise plans cannot be separated from the question of concrete steps of advance. Concrete advances are now an inseparable part of the problem of getting the principle of federation accepted. Those things cannot be divided up into watertight compartments or into periods of July, April, and so forth.
Perhaps I should say a word about what I think ought to be done in the way of concrete steps. I do not want to interfere in any way in the internal affairs of Southern Rhodesia, but all of us have to play our part if these ideas are to be accepted. It should be said that a great contribution to the acceptance by Africans of federation would be a lowering of the qualification for admission to the common roll in Southern Rhodesia. I agree with what the hon. Member for Preston, North, said about the good

results that would flow from the official recognition of trade unions.
When, however, we come to territories where we are ourselves responsible, it is important that in Northern Rhodesia there should be progress in these partnership talks. My right hon. Friend and I attached great importance to them when we were out at Victoria Falls. We regarded it as an essential part of the strategy of winning voluntary and free agreement to the principle of federation.
I must say that, listening to the right hon. Gentleman, I had the feeling that great dilatoriness was shown over this. He told us that Africans refused to enter the talks, but that was three months after the end of the Victoria Falls Conference. My right hon. Friend and I left behind us the clear impression that we regarded this as a matter of great urgency in which there should be no delay.
What happened in those three months? It seems to me that there can have been nothing like the proper initiative that ought to have been taken, showing, again, a complete failure to understand the real importance of African opinion and the real inter-connection of the various parts of this problem if we are to get agreement on federation.
I say that the whole concept in the first place of the April conference was a wrong one. The whole idea behind it was based on the view that the Government could separate the getting of a detailed plan from all the other problems that go with it, and it seems to me that it will make the right hon. Gentleman's own plans more difficult to achieve. We on this side of the House are very glad that the African Protectorate Council are coming over for discussions with the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman who is to reply can tell us how many are coming, but if that is difficult to ascertain, perhaps we can be told later by means of an answer to a Question.
Of course, we all join with the right hon. Gentleman in hoping that the Africans from Northern Rhodesia will accept the invitation and will come and talk with him. But the holding of a conference in April, a few days, perhaps, after these gentlemen from Africa arrive, will make it more difficult to achieve a


successful outcome of the talks he is to have with them.
The essential point which the Minister will be discussing with them is whether they will agree to come to the April conference, and if that conference is already fixed for a week or a few days after they are here, it will make it more difficult for him to achieve success in what for anyone would be a very difficult undertaking. There would be advantage in having more time to play with, and a postponement of the April conference to July would improve the chances of the Minister having successful talks with the Africans from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say now, and whatever he may bring in at other conferences like the July conference, there is no doubt that the advancing of the date to April in the first place acquired a real and symbolical importance. It became a symptom of an attitude of disregard of African opinion. Not only was it so regarded by Africans, but it is so regarded by the Labour Party here.
The right hon. Gentleman has already conceded our point on this by now adding a July conference. He does not want to retract—I know how difficult it is to retract from positions one has taken up in public—but by adding a July conference he has, in effect, admitted the justification of our arguments about the April conference. Incidentally, I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether these conferences in April and July will be held whether or not the Africans attend them.
The right hon. Gentleman also now has involved himself in an extremely complicated time-table, including both April and July and with Africans arriving just before the April conference. I still do not think that the harm of advancing the date of the conference to April has been undone by having another conference in July and leaving the April conference where it is. I press the Government to go the whole way, to accept the logic that has led them to having a July conference, and to abandon the April conference and go back to the one in July which was originally foreseen in the Victoria Falls communiqué.
Now I come to what I regard as the most important point of all: the confer

ence with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and the Governors of the two Colonies. We are greatly disturbed, not only by the fact of the conference, as my right hon. Friend said and for the reasons he gave, but by what the Minister himself said during the debate.
I might just deal with the argument in which he tried to involve us in his own guilt. About the conference itself he used a rather technical argument. He said it was in no sense a conference. But the essential thing is that it looked like a conference. It looked like a conference to us and it certainly looked like a conference to the Africans. It looked like a white man's conference from which the Africans were being excluded and that was an extremely foolish impression to create.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted part of paragraph 5 of the Victoria Falls communiqué to us, where we said that there ought to be exchanges of views between the Governors. But my main point is there are many ways of exchanging views between Governors; all sorts of ways. We are continually exchanging views between Governors in the Commonwealth. We do not have to have conferences, and it was not in our minds when we put our names to this communiqué that there should be this sort of white man's conference, or so it could be represented, which we were completely convinced would be a complete mistake.
If the right hon. Gentleman was determined to have a conference instead of all the other ways by which opinions could be exchanged, he could have had the Africans there. Two of the Governors concerned are his own Governors, taking his own orders, and he cannot shelter behind his own Governors.
The thing which worries us is the very alarming words used by the right hon. Gentleman today when my right hon. Friend asked him about what happened at this conference. He talked about fixing the agenda in private and about discussions of modifications in the plan. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that those words will cause very great alarm in Africa, as, indeed, they cause alarm to us. It means a departure from the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend and by both of us in the discussions of the conference that the plan would not be discussed without the presence of the


Africans. If there were discussions of modifications in the plan, those undertakings have been abandoned—

Mr. Lyttelton: No.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The undertaking given by my right hon. Friend and myself has been abandoned if there was a discussion of the plan. We said there would not be a discussion on details of the plan in the absence of the Africans.

Mr. Lyttelton: I must put the right hon. Gentleman right on this point. It is perfectly clear in the communiqué that any suggested modifications should be communicated to Her Majesty's Government by 1st March. Those modifications will then have to be discussed with the African delegation and at the April conference. That is perfectly clear.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will find any reference to 1st March in this communiqué from beginning to end. I think he must be referring to another document.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am referring to a communiqué asking for discussions of the plan.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am talking about what the right hon. Gentleman said at that Despatch Box. He talked about discussions and modifications in the plan and perhaps he will explain what he—

Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely at sea about this matter. After the discussions to which he is now referring, a communiqué was issued asking the Governors concerned to let Her Majesty's Government know in London of any modifications they wished to be discussed at the April Conference. Those modifications have not even been received up to date. That will form the discussion at the conference in April.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman said earlier today that the conference itself discussed modifications of the plan—

Mr. Lyttelton: No.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I think that when we come to read HANSARD we shall see it there. We all made a note of it, because the words struck us as being very important indeed.
In any case, surely the right hon. Gentleman does not deny that he used these words, or words like this, about fixing the agenda in private. It is words of that sort which create so much alarm. There is already suspicion about this conference and if the right hon. Gentleman does not treat the suspicions of the Africans as rather important factors in this consideration, he is not dealing seriously with this matter.
It has raised grave doubts, and whether or not the constitutional safeguards in the officials' Report are to be whittled away or not, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman this: it was very significant that the right hon. Gentleman, while he spoke about Protectorate status, and so forth—and I was very glad to hear his words on that subject—did not say a single word about the African Affairs Board or the Minister for African Interests. The general impression created on all these things was that there was a discussion at this conference about the whittling away of very important safeguards in the officials' Report.
I know, and everybody knows, the Southern Rhodesian view on this matter, and we have to realise that acceptance of this would constitute a sacrifice by Southern Rhodesia. It would mean entering into a federation with fewer powers than Southern Rhodesia now possesses, but I hope that Southern Rhodesia will not be responsible for rejecting the main plan of the officials. We ourselves—and I must say this to the right hon. Gentleman—regard it as absolutely essential that these constitutional safeguards, or something equally effective, shall be preserved, and that there shall be no whittling away of those safeguards.
I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that we would be completely opposed to any scheme that comes out of this which involves the whittling away of these very important constitutional safeguards. This whole action is so opposed to what we did when we were in power, it is so damaging to the hopes of getting agreement on the principle of federation, in which we believe, and is so symptomatic of a wrong and dangerous approach to the whole problem, and, certainly, so opposed to what we would have done were we in power, that we feel that we


have no alternative but to divide the House.

9.32 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): I would like to start by adding my meed of praise for the two maiden speeches which contributed so usefully and so interestingly to this debate. I should also like to start by reminding the House of the course of the debate as it unfolded itself. I am addressing myself mainly to the arguments put forward from the other side, because it is these with which I wish to deal.
There were two streams of comment on the proposals for closer association. The first was exemplified by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and the hon. Members for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) and Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick), who started from the premise that they were in favour of the broad lines of the federation proposal, though they were not committed to any particular details. Like the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), they were in favour of federation because of the economic and political advantages. The right hon. Member for Llanelly pointed out the urgent need, as he put it, for various political reasons, why the federation of the Central African territories should be achieved, and he asked my right hon. Friend two questions, to which I will refer in a moment or two.
The other stream of comment was exemplified by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), and the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. J. Dugdale), who, in effect, opposed federation as contained in these proposals. They were opposed to the proposal for federation because they said it would give a white minority the possibility of tyranny over millions of Africans. I think the position of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) was in between the two. He reminded us of some of the historical past, but I believe that he is in favour of federation for the Central African territories, and I also believe that—

Mr. C. Davies: With the consent of the Africans themselves, willingly and freely given.

Mr. Foster: I appreciate that, and I hope to satisfy the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the course we are now taking is designed to secure that consent.
I would also like to appeal to the two right hon. Gentleman who spoke, one at the beginning and at the other end of this debate, to consider these facts. If they divide today, they are making Central African federation very difficult indeed. I think the right hon. Member for Smethwick would answer, "That is your fault for taking the course you are now taking."
I know the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite are keen on federation. They said so today and they said so before. They said they regarded the proposals of the officials as a constructive approach, and, therefore, I am going to appeal to them to follow me through the steps taken to see whether the course we are now pursuing will not give an extra chance of getting African opinion on our side.
I will go straight to the points which have been raised by the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because I think they are the nub of this discussion. I hope other hon. Gentlemen will forgive me if I do not follow them into the particular points they have raised, but I have very little time and I know that it is on this particular point that hon. Members opposite will want an answer. I am hoping that if they think the case put forward is the right one they might withdraw their decision to divide. They want the best chance to be given to Central African federation, and if they came to the conclusion that the matter has been decided on grounds which they perhaps have misunderstood, especially if a Division of the House would impede federation, then I am sure they would not let pride or the appearance of having to go back on what they have said interfere with the reversal of their decision to divide.
What has happened is this—and one has to go into a little bit of detail. At the Victoria Falls Conference a communiqué was issued which said that the next conference would be in July. The House will remember that the right hon. Member for Llanelly said, quite rightly, that the details of the officials' Report had not been considered in detail at the Victoria Falls Conference. Therefore,


if the timetable envisaged by the Victoria Falls Conference had been followed, we would have found that the first discussion on the officials' Report would have been at the conference in July. I think that must be right because that was the next conference envisaged by the Victoria Falls meeting.
It was also known to the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite that all three Governments had various modifications, amendments and qualifications they wanted to put forward about details. It is also known to them that if the timetable envisaged by the Victoria Falls Conference had been kept, then those modifications and amendments would have been heard for the first time at a conference in July.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The whole of this argument is based upon the idea that the conference decided that the meeting which we hoped would re-assemble in July would be the last one. We said nothing of the kind; we only said it would be the next one.

Mr. Foster: As a result of the course which the Government propose to follow at the conference to be held in April, there will be an opportunity for those modifications to be discussed with African opinion. At that conference, the Africans can put forward any modifications and amendments they wish. They can submit them to my right hon. Friend when the deputation comes to see him a few days before the conference, they can put them forward in April and again at the conference which is going to take place after that.
Where I must part company from the right hon. Member for Smethwick is on the point that it is really an unreal distinction to say that we must first discuss the principle of federation and not look at the details. That is an unreal position. One cannot decide whether federation is or is not acceptable—I speak now from the Africans' point of view—until one knows what safeguards are written into the constitution, how the Africans are to be protected, which subjects are to be reserved and which are not.
The conference in July, 1952, will be all the more useful because there will be a definite scheme at the end, in the sense that it will be in black and white

and will embody the modifications, if any, accepted and agreed upon by the three Governments. It will be a better scheme to put forward before the July conference and a more definite scheme than the right hon. Member for Lanelly could have put forward at the next conference following the Victoria Falls Conference. Additional work has been done on it and African opinion has had opportunity to express itself. And the Governments have had the opportunity of putting forward their studied modifications.
It is impossible for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that it would be a better conference in July, 1952, if these modifications, if any, were not embodied in the new scheme, that it would be a better conference if African opinion had not had the opportunity of expressing itself and that it would be a better conference if Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland had not had an opportunity of putting forward modifications. I appeal to hon. Members opposite. The July, 1952, conference must be better and more useful as a result—

Mr. Gordon Walker: Would not the April conference be a much better conference if the Africans had been consulted about the change of date? That is one reason why they are so suspicious.

Mr. Foster: No, because I view the July conference as embodying all the Africans could expect from the Victoria Falls Conference plus something more. They will have the April conference and will have the opportunity of coming over in a deputation, which I understand will be composed of about the same number as were at the Victoria Falls.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: The African representatives have not yet agreed to come to the April conference but only to consultations. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us an undertaking that if they decline to attend the conference, the conference will not be held?

Mr. Foster: No. We are not facing defeat at the moment. We are pursuing a forward, dynamic policy which is to invite the Africans over as a deputation and to talk to them and, if it is necessary, to try and persuade them to stay at the conference.
It was argued from the Front Bench opposite that the principle of federation


must be separated from the details of federation, but that is not what the Victoria Falls Conference envisaged. They had the proposals of the officials' Report in black and white—and a very formidable document it was. That was to be considered at the adjourned Victoria Falls Conference in 1952, so that all the April conference does is to try and make an improvement, in the sense of getting a more definite scheme with modifications and amendments suggested by the Governments and agreed by them.

Mr. Griffiths: Unless he is returning to it later, I think that on this question of modification the hon. Gentleman is missing a thing which quite frankly is the biggest thing that disturbs us and which has finally made us decide to divide the House. It is that at the Victoria Falls Conference everything considered was considered with the Africans present. The Secretary of State has told us today that at the recent conference to which Africans were not invited, modifications were considered in their absence. That is a complete departure from the Victoria Falls Conference.

Mr. Foster: First of all, we can only stick to our view, and I should have thought that to any impartial observer it is correct that these discussions were between Governments. Paragraph 5 of the Victoria Falls Conference communiqué has been mentioned in this debate. That paragraph envisaged discussion between Governments.

Mr. Griffiths: This is very important. When we discuss Governments in Central Africa we should remember the vital distinction and remember that two of the Governments are Governments for which the Secretary of State for the Colonies is responsible. I said in Central Africa, as Secretary of State for the Colonies, that we would not discuss this plan in the absence of the Africans.

Mr. Foster: I do not think that can be correct. I do not object to the right hon. Gentleman interrupting. He knows that I am trying to persuade him, and if he were persuaded he would rescind his decision; otherwise there would be no point in his interrupting me and no point in having this debate. In paragraph 5 he says that there should be an exchange of views between the four Governments We thought the best way to exchange

views on this matter was to get the four Governments together so that their views could be exchanged. That is all that has happened.
The Victoria Falls communiqué said:
It has become evident that further discussion within each territory and exchanges of views between the four Governments will be necessary, and the Conference has therefore adjourned.
There was certainly no hint anywhere there that that would be regarded as a conference and that at that conference Africans would have to be present. There is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to be at all suspicious or frightened about these discussions. The agenda is at large but it is, in effect, an adjourned Victoria Falls Conference at which the whole subject of federation will be at large; at which the Africans can put forward any modifications they wish, and to which the four Governments will have sent a pre-notice of their amendments and modifications which they want to put forward to the Colonial Office by 1st March.
Is that a sufficient reason to do the harm which a Division of this House, at this time, must do? Is it a justification for that, even assuming that the right hon. Gentleman were right and that I was completely wrong? Let us assume that. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite actually think there should be a closer association of these territories and that there should be a federation? Do they really think that because the Colonial Secretary says that an agenda has been fixed and because the discussions between the Governments were not attended by Africans, at this stage they should solidify and emphasise the opposition of the Africans by saying that the House ought to divide on this? Surely, if their criticisms were true, they should still wait and see and hope that we will achieve federation.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Mr. Fenner Brockway  rose—

Mr. Foster: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. It is late, and I do attach great importance to making this point. I have cast away the comments I wanted to make on the hon. Gentleman's speech because of the importance of trying to persuade the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a reason, at this time, to undo the splendid work which his Government had begun. They were the architects of federation. They said that the proposals


of the officials were a constructive approach. It is still a constructive approach, and in our submission—though I do not ask them to agree with it—it will be the more constructive, therefore, when the modifications and amendments of the Governments have been annexed to it, so that there will be a very adequate consideration of all free African opinion.
The April conference can only improve the officials' Report, as I have said before. There is nothing sinister about the agenda.

Mr. John Paton: Why not publish it?

Mr. Foster: There is no way of publishing it, because it is not fixed. The agenda is what was before the Victoria Falls Conference, namely, the whole question of federation, plus the amendments and modifications of the four Governments.

Mr. Paton: Why the secrecy about it?

Mr. Foster: There is no secrecy, I assure the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Paton: The right hon. Gentleman said there was.

Mr. Foster: I am trying to be sincere about this. There is no secrecy; it was all indicated in the communiqué after the discussions with the two Governors and Sir Godfrey Huggins. It was stated that these gentlemen should inform Her Majesty's Government and each other before 1st March of any modifications they wanted. The next sentence in the communiqué says that a full conference should be held to consider any modifications suggested. There is the agenda, plus any modifications suggested by the Africans, who could put them in writing and give them to my right hon. Friend to put before the conference, even if they did not go there. There is no need for this suspicion.

Mr. Sorensen: Is that all they discussed when they stayed here all that time?

Mr. Foster: They were the ordinary governmental discussions which were envisaged at Victoria Falls. We were carrying out the time-table of our predecessors, but we thought we were improving on it. Even if hon. Gentlemen

opposite do not agree with me, will they not hold their hands before they take an irrevocable step? Even if it is our fault—let us put it this way—cannot we agree, as a British Parliament in the United Kingdom, that harm would be done to the cause of federation by dividing?

Mr. J. Hynd: The point with which most of us are concerned is that the Minister said today that the July conference would be held and would be the final conference. We have been unable to get an assurance from the Government that they will not impose federation against African opinion. We want to know if it is their decision that the final conference in July will impose federation even if the Africans do not want it.

Mr. Foster: The point is that we have a definite programme. We do not know what would be meant by African opinion. Even if hon. Gentlemen opposite are right, would it not be better for them to wait until nearer the time and then to vote against it? Even if we were wrong, and even if it is our fault, the harm which will be done by a Division is far greater than is justified by the desire to register disapproval of a certain course today. The right hon. Member for Llanelly has the cause of federation very much at heart. As I have said, he started it. He wanted federation, for economic and political reasons. Has he no feeling in his heart—

Mr. Griffiths: Certainly I have. I did not first say this today I said it in April to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House. I complain because I think the Government have gone the wrong way about it by holding these discussions and because they once more put the Africans outside—and that has been the bane of all these things in the past and is so today.

Mr. Foster: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I do not agree with him, because these were regarded as ordinary discussions envisaged by paragraph 5, but even assuming that he is right, does he want to prove he is right today by dividing the House? Will he not suspend his judgment? Will he not give a chance to the conference—

Mr. Paton: Give us the assurance!

Mr. Foster: Will he not give this conference in April a chance to succeed and to try to get African opinion to take the right view? Will he not give them a


chance to solve the problem? I make a serious appeal to him to suspend judgment between April and July. After July, I shall say, "All right; if you condemn our actions, if you think we were wrong, then vote against us because you will not be doing any harm in Central Africa." But even if hon. Gentlemen opposite are right, then at least let them act on the assumption that they will give the wrong view a chance of succeeding in Central Africa.
What will be the effect in Central Africa of almost half the House of Commons dividing against the Government on this issue? What will they think the Division was about—because one side said these were discussions and the other side regarded them as a conference?

Mr. J. Hynd: What will be the effect of the Government not giving a pledge?

Mr. C. Davies: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman also consider what may be the effect in Africa if the Africans realise that this will not be forced upon them against their will, but will be granted only if they are a consenting party?

Mr. Foster: Yes, but, as I say, it is impossible to go into negotiations by giving one side a veto. It is impossible to go into negotiations if one announces that, if a few people coming into them announce opposition, the whole thing will be dropped. That would be very wrong, too. That would be betraying the cause of the Africans in Central Africa.
We have to deal with the situation as it arises. We have got to judge whether there is some African opinion, and how much, and which way it is, and what it represents. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken recognise the position of the Africans. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the effect of a Division tonight will be to put back the cause of Central African federation, because the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite have regarded the

small area of the dispute tonight—it is on an important subject, but it is in a small area—as more important than setting against that the effect of a Division in the House on this occasion.

The Government, it is clear, are not imposing this on the Africans, because they have got a deputation coming over; they are soliciting African opinion; and they are inviting Africans to a conference, and giving them the opportunity to make modifications and amendments. This is not railroading African opinion. [An HON. MEMBER: "Suppose they disagree."] It depends who disagrees, and how many. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Hon. Gentlemen say "Ah," but if one person disagreed it would not kill the whole scheme. It is a matter of observation when it happens. Inevitably, when we are trying to get African opinion, we must do this in the orderly way of having the time-table. The right hon. Gentleman himself at Victoria Falls envisaged that the next conference would not be a final one, and at that conference one step forward would have been taken, we hope.

I do submit to the House, as I have said on several occasions in my speech, I am afraid—I apologise for having made a plea on only one particular point, but it was an important one, and one, obviously, that hon. Gentlemen attach importance to—that a Division tonight, even if hon. Gentlemen opposite were right, even if we were wrong, would be setting the dispute tonight in too great a compass; that they will, by dividing, put back the cause of Central African federation. I am very sorry indeed for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they are trying to kill their own child, and I know how difficult it must be for them. I regret this. I do appeal, even at the last minute, to the right hon. Gentleman to think again.

Question put, "That '£918,376,000' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 238.

Division No. 35.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Baxter, A. B.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Beach, Maj. Hicks


Alport, C. J. M.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Baldock, Lt.-Cdr. J. M.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)


Amery, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Baldwin, A. E.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Banks, Col. C.
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)


Arbuthnot, John
Barber, A. P. L.
Bennett, William (Woodside)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Barlow, Sir John
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)




Birch, Nigel
Higgs, J. M. C.
Partridge, E.


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O


Black, C. W.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bossom, A. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peyton, J. W. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A


Braine, B. R.
Hollis, M. C.
Pitman, I. J.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hope, Lord John
Powell, J. Enoch


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Horobin, I. M.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Raikes, H. V.


Bullard, D. G.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Redmayne, M.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Butcher, H. W.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hurd, A. R.
Robertson, Sir David


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Robson-Brown, W.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Roper, Sir Harold


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Jennings, R.
Russell, R. S.


Cole, Norman
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Colegate, W. A.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Kaberry, D.
Scott, R. Donald


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Shepherd, William


Cranborne, Viscount
Lambert, Hon. G.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. C. F.
Lambton, Viscount
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legge-Bourke Maj. E. A. H.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Crouch, R. F.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Snadden, W. McN.


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Linstead, H. N.
Speir, R. M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stevens, G. P.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Deedes, W. F.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Low, A. R. W.
Storey, S.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Donner, P. W.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Studholme, H. G.


Doughty, C. J. A.
McAdden, S. J.
Summers, G. S.


Drayson, G. B.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Drewe, C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T.(Richmond)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
McKibbin, A. J.
Teeling, W.


Duthie, W. S.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Maclay, Hon. John
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Erroll, F. J.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Fell, A.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Finlay, Graeme
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Thorneycroft, Rt Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Fisher, Nigel
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Tilney, John


Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Touche, G. C.


Fort, R.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Turton, R. H.


Foster, John
Markham, Maj. S. F.
Vane, W. M. F.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Marples, A. E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gammans, L. D.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. C. Lloyd
Maudling, R.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Godber, J. B.
Maydon, Ltd.-Cmdr. S. L. C
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Gough, C. F. H.
Mellor, Sir John
Watkinson, H. A.


Gower, H. R.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Wellwood, W.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Nabarro, G. D. N.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nicholls, Harmar
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Harden, J. R. E.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Wills, G.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nutting, Anthony
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Oakshott, H. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Odey, G. W.
York, C.


Hay, John
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)



Heald, Sir Lionel
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Heath, Edward
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Osborne, C.
Mr. Dennis Vosper.







NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paton, J.


Albu, A. H.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Peart, T. F.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Hamilton, W. W.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hannan, W.
Popplewell, E.


Awbery, S. S.
Hargreaves, A.
Porter, G.


Ayles, W. H.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hastings, S.
Price, Phillips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Balfour, A.
Hayman, F. H.
Proctor, W. T.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Pryde, D. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Reeves, J.


Bence, C. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Benson, G.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Rhodes, H.


Beswick, F.
Hobson, C. R.
Richards, R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Holman, P.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Bing, G. H. C.
Holt, A. F.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hoy, J H.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ross, William


Bottomley, Rt. Hon A. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Royle, C.


Bowden, H. W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Bowen, E. R.
Hynd, H (Accrington)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Bowles, F. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Short, E. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Janner, B.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Slater, J.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Sorensen, R. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S)
Steele, T.


Carmichael, J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Keenan, W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Champion, A. J.
Kenyon, C.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Chapman, W. D.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Chetwynd, G. R.
King, Dr. H. M.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Clunie, J.
Kinley, J.
Swingler, S. T.


Cocks, F. S.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sylvester, G. O.


Collick, P. H.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Cook, T. F.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Corbet, Mrs Freda
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Taylor, Rt. Hon Robert (Morpeth)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Daines, P.
Logan, D. G.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Longden, Fred (Small Health)
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
MacColl, J. E.
Timmons, J.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
McGovern, J.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McInnes, J.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Wade, D. W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McLeavy, F.
Wallace, H. W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Watkins, T. E.


Deer, G.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Weitzman, D.


Delargy, H. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Dodds, N. N.
Manuel, A. C.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon John (W. Bromwich)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
West, D. G.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mayhew, C. P.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Edelman, M.
Mellish, R. J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Mikardo, Ian
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Monslow, W.
Wigg, George


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Morley, R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Ewart, R.
Morris, Percy (Swansea W.)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Fienburgh, W.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, David (Neath)


Finch, H. J.
Moyle, A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Foot, M. M.
Murray, J. D.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Forman, J. C.
Nally, W.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
O'Brien, T.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Gibson, C. W.
Oldfield, W. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Glanville, James
Oliver, G. H.
Wyatt, W. L.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Orbach, M.
Yates, V. F.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Oswald, T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Padley, W. E.



Grey, C. F.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pannell, Charles
Mr. Arthur Pearson and


Grimond, J.
Pargiter, G. A.
Mr. Horace E. Holmes.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Parker, J.



Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £918,376,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the Civil and Revenue Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Alport discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts, and Mr. Scott added.—[Mr. Drewe.]

IRON AND STEEL (DISTRIBUTION SCHEME)

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Iron and Steel Distribution Order, 1951 (S.I. 1951, No. 2006), dated 20th November, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st November, be annulled.
This Order was made on 28th November and came into effect on 4th February. The purpose of the Order is to ration the supplies of iron and steel except for the small quantities which are listed in the Third Schedule. It is a new Order in the sense that except for sheet and tinplate there was no statutory control of iron and steel before 4th February. The previous scheme ended in May, 1950.
I should like to make it clear at the outset to the House and the Minister that, in moving this Motion, I do not wish to oppose the principles of a distribution scheme at this time In fact, the scheme was inherited by the present Administration when they took office, and I think it will be agreed on both sides of the House that control of iron and steel at this time is absolutely necessary if we are to pursue the export, and defence programmes to which we are committed.
The question I want to raise tonight is whether this type of allocation is the best way of directing the use of iron and steel in the national interests, and whether its administration, which comes entirely within the discretion of the

Minister and is not laid down in the Order, serves that purpose.
Before addressing myself to these points, I should like to ask one or two questions to enable the Minister to make clear the need for allocations at this time and the size of the problem. A number of estimates have appeared in the Press as to the difference between the overall supply and the overall demand. The short-fall has been estimated at as little as 7 per cent. Can the Minister give us an estimate for this period, February and March, and also for the next quarter and perhaps also the figures for the main types of steel listed in the First Schedule to the Order?
Secondly, can he tell us the percentage of total supplies that have actually been allocated for this purpose. In other words, is there anything in reserve? Could he possibly give us a rough idea of how the allocations are divided between defence, export and home civilian consumption? Thirdly, could he tell us what is the basis of the allocation? Is it 1949–50 when the previous scheme was in operation, or 1950–51, or current consumption or current requirements?
I am informed, in fact, that there is some discrepancy between the basis of allocation and between the different forms of industry, and there is no question but that the allocation of 1949–50 or even 1950–51 penalises firms which have increased capacity, and particularly creates difficulties for those with large and expanding export orders. Conversely, it gives an unreasonably high allocation to those whose businesses have declined.
If current consumption, or consumption in the immediate period before the Order took effect, is the basis, this penalises firms who have been working under capacity for the last 12 months because of their difficulty in getting supplies. Consequently, the scheme would perpetuate the mal-distribution of steel supplies which it is designed to rectify. If cuts of x-per cent. were applied to these cases, it would not be sound policy. The only proper basis is the requirements of a firm or industry. If there is shortage of steel, this can then be reduced by an allocation on a percentage calculated on the priority of the end-goods concerned.
I appreciate that it is unwise to make public the exact allocation made to in


dividual firms and industries because it inevitably leads to rivalry, jealousy and so on, but I ask the Minister to ensure that all are treated on the same basis.
It is obvious that any scheme will produce complaints. It is also obvious that the production of steel to increase exports and defence will mean a reduction of steel for home civilian use. In fact, it would seem that in the first period there was a complete freezing of supplies, or a niggardly release, which is tantamount to the same thing. This would appear premature, since re-armament is not able to consume all the diverted steel and widespread dislocation, considerable under-employment, and redundancy in certain areas, have been caused.
We have been told that the anticipated volume of defence orders was not reached in the last year. Can the Minister tell us why existing production has not been allowed to dwindle in step with the decrease in re-armament? Why has it been necessary to chop off certain civilian supplies, with widespread dislocation?
I can illustrate this point with two examples in my own constituency in Sheffield. One is of a firm making civilian products, admittedly not of very high priority, although including export orders. It has a large defence sub-contract to begin in June. It cannot begin its defence work until then because, of the necessary re-tooling, not only in its own work but in the work of the main contractor. On account of the drastic reduction in steel supplies for its existing product, the firm will be unable to retain skilled workers so as to be ready to begin its defence orders in June. This decision will retard and not help the re-armament programme.
The second case concerns a steel-mill, producing hack-saw steel. I understand that redundancy is threatened in one department because, although there is no shortage of billets, the firms' customers have been unable to obtain the necessary authority to acquire the steel which the firm can produce. I am informed that at the moment they are producing for stock. Yet, during the war, when we were on a 100 per cent. war economy, this firm were in full production, producing the same types of steel.
Consequently, we get the absurd situation that there are firms on one side of the street threatened with redundancy

because they cannot acquire tool steel, and on the other side of the street a firm threatened with redundancy because it cannot sell the steel that it is able to make. Both these cases, assuming that they will be adjusted in due course when full output is required, will not be able to expand their production because they will have lost some key workers. That is not a problem that can be resolved by juggling with numbers of men.
The high production which the country needs can only be achieved by keeping together teams of men who, over the years, have developed an understanding between themselves and an understanding between worker and management. We cannot halve the labour force one week and in six months, even if we can get the number of men made up, expect to start production at the level where it was chopped off. I suggest to the Minister that this is an urgent problem and that this human aspect of production should be considered, as well as the bare statistics.
Apart from the question of what happens to the workers who are redundant, and the human problem they represent which needs also to be considered, this policy will retard and not increase production in the fields in which expansion is necessary. I wonder whether the officials of the Ministry ask themselves or ask the firm concerned what are the consequences of this allocation to the firm and its workers for the future.
It is for this reason that the prospect of increased allocations in the future is not particularly helpful, since the gap may involve the complete disorganisation of the complex working of the factories. Will the Minister assure us that there is no reserve of steel being built up, because the belief that this is the case exasperates men and management alike, and the evidence would appear to indicate that there is such a reserve since several industries have received increased allocations after sending deputations to see the Minister—to mention examples from Sheffield, the hand tool and light spring manufacturers.
Again, the second allocation in many cases is larger proportionately than the first. It is, of course, for three months instead of two months as was the first, but it is not smaller as one would assume it would be if the defence programme


is building up. For the second quarter one would have thought it would have been smaller than the first, but instead of that for many firms it is larger. I believe that at this time to build up such a reserve by reducing steel exports would be criminal folly and certainly would make nonsense of all the appeals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase exports to meet our balance of payments difficulties. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give us a clear answer to this point tonight.
Before turning to one or two examples of bad allocations in the light of national needs, I want briefly to ventilate another point of criticism which has caused great inconvenience to a number of Sheffield firms. That is the date on which the allocation for the current February to March period was notified to the firms concerned. In fairness to the Minister, I must say that they concern cases where other Ministries were acting as agents for the Ministry of Supply in this matter, but in many cases they did not receive their allocation until very near 4th February and in some cases actually after that date when the scheme began. This naturally caused great anxiety to the firms concerned.
Also, on account of the low stocks which are prevalent and because it takes about two months from the placing of an order before delivery of the special steel required can be expected, it led in many cases to a slowing up of production, short-time working and under-employment. Even before 4th February, of course, in practice an allocation scheme was in operation since the steel mills would not accept orders unless accompanied by the appropriate authorisation. This particularly penalised small firms.
Another difficulty facing small firms now under the allocation scheme is that they cannot get various types of light steel and are having to use heavier steel than that which they need, to the detriment of the steel position generally. It amounts to a misuse of resources. The reason would appear to be that the mills have practically stopped rolling various types of light steel—for example, "T" bars—and there are some small firms who are unable to take up their allocations.
I want to give one or two examples of what appear to me to be bad allocations in the light of our need of more exports. First, a firm manufacturing gramophone needles, which has expanded its exports, in the face of Japanese and German competition, so that in the last year it exported 60 per cent. of its production, has been allocated only 64 per cent. of its requirements, I am told, for the first two periods—and this despite the fine conversion value of those exports.
In another case, of textile machine accessories, I am told that the firm is getting only 51 per cent. of the steel required to work at full capacity—again, despite its bulk of export orders. My third example concerns the hand tool trade, which is generally admitted to have been very badly hit. I have already mentioned some of the repercussions. Some steel mills are reducing output of these special steels because manufacturers cannot take up their production.
I have seen the figures relating to a firm which, because of recent expansion by installing new machinery, is getting only 26 per cent. of its current potential consumption, or 13 per cent. of what it requires to work at full capacity. This firm recently installed an injection moulding machine, using American powder, which it was allowed to import on the understanding that 90 per cent. of its output would be exported; and although it has a stock of this American powder, paid for in dollars, it has no steel allocation whatever to make the blades that it produces. This is particularly discouraging to firms who have shown great initiative in responding to the call for more exports.
That firm more than doubled its exports between September, 1950, and December, 1951. I am told that, in fact, it raised the export proportion of its production in that period from one-half to two-thirds. It would appear that firms who, in the national interests, have tried hardest to expand production and to expand exports, have been the hardest hit.
The Minister will agree that it is difficult to answer a correspondent who writes that:
Unless we get a considerable increase, we shall ultimately have to lay off a large number of our workers. Furthermore, we have no stocks on which we can depend during the next few months. We are willing for you or


any Member of the Government Departments to come down here and check over our stocks and it will he realised that we are running on almost a day-to-day basis. We are at a loss to understand why our allocations have been so severely cut in view of our high conversion factor and our increased export trade which we understand is so essential to the country's economy.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give an answer tonight and to assure us that the detailed working of the scheme has his close attention.
The working of the Order is of the utmost importance to our economy, to the maintenance of full employment, and to meeting our balance of payments difficulties, as well as our defence requirements. I hope that the Minister will not neglect it because of his pre-occupation with the de-nationalisation of the steel industry, which, I believe, can only aggravate an already serious position.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) has already made it clear that we on this side of the House have nothing against the principle behind the Order. Indeed, we welcome the belated conversion of right hon. and hon. Members opposite to the principles of control, priorities and fair shares, although they are somewhat late in accepting them. For our own part, had we been in power, we undoubtedly would have used an instrument of this kind for the three-fold purpose of maintaining full employment, of maintaining our export trade and of carrying out our defence programme.
But in some obscure way, in the manner with which we are now familiar on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite, we find that instead of full employment being maintained we have unemployment and under-employment. Instead of the export programme being maintained, we see a decline in the programme. Worst of all, in view of the protestations of the Government and the Minister of Supply, we now find that the defence programme is not being carried out to schedule; and owing to the working and present operation of this Order there are serious difficulties in our factories.
All over the country, whether it be in Scotland, where the ship-building is

getting only 70 per cent. of its requirements, or whether it be in the Midlands, where the motorcar industry and the vehicle and associated engineering industries are getting on an average only 80 per cent. of their requirements, there are complaints of the working of this Order and the activities of the Government. There are complaints, not only by workers, who are fairly vocal in their complaints that they are not being allowed to carry out the full measure of production as they would like to, but also by managements, and all those who feel and recognise that unless we maintain our export programme and use all the labour and skill available the country will be in very serious difficulties.
Only the other day I was shocked to find, as I am sure the House will be shocked to learn, that in many factories up and down the country workers and managements are getting together, not in order to see with what little labour a job can be done but, on the contrary, to see how much labour can be put into a particular job in order to keep men in employment. That is very common, and I wish to give the right hon. Gentleman some examples of cases with which I am familiar in my own constituency.
I will not refer to those who have given me the information, but I am prepared to take full responsibility for the information I am about to supply. I was told by a trade unionist only the other day that at his factory a 35-hour week was being worked, the workers preferring short-time to redundancy. Despite that fact, and this occurred in the case of a motor firm, 298 workers had been dismissed.
I have another case where another trade unionist told me that in his factory, an important factory concerned with the vital motor industry, vital to our export trade, 430 men had been dismissed as redundant—about 10 per cent. of the labour force of the factory.

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member arguing that these dismissals took place as a result of the operation of this Order?

Mr. Edelman: That is precisely my argument; that owing to the ineptness and fumbling of the right hon. Gentleman and those associated with him, we are now in the position that we have


serious unemployment and under-employment in industries vital to both our export and armament programmes.
I will give one illustration arising directly out of the operation of this Order by the Government. It relates to a factory concerned as much with armament work as with the export programme. A worker informed me that the cut in the allocation of steel had resulted in the reduction of 300 units per week. This could have meant shutting out 350, but by negotiation, sectional work, short-time, etc., it had been brought down to a redundancy of 10 per cent. This firm was on armament work, and the worker could not understand why that labour had been declared redundant. I do not want to multiply examples, although I could do so, but I gave them to illustrate how the inept working of this Order has resulted in the difficulties which I have described.
I cannot forbear from giving one other example, which is not concerned with sheet steel as were the other examples. A Coventry trade unionist tells me that the foundry in which he is employed, and which is considered to be a barometer for the engineering industry, had to declare during the week before last no fewer than 84 men as redundant while short time is being worked from now on. I have given these examples as a general illustration of how the steel shortage—or alleged shortage, because I hope to prove that the position is not as the Minister says because, far from there being a shortage, there is an adequacy—is really affecting industry.
Here I have an example of how, in those factories where sheet steel allocations have been cut down, armaments workers have been made redundant and are unable to find suitable work to absorb their skill. A shop steward in the Vehicle Builders' Union has told me that two hundred vehicle builders are out of work in Coventry and finding it extremely difficult to obtain alternative suitable employment. Other jobs, such as bakers' roundsmen, have been offered, but that, honourable job though it is, is unsuitable. Other men have been offered posts as cloakroom attendants.
My informant formed the opinion that the Government intended to shut out

40,000 workers from the motor industry, and I would ask the Minister a direct question on that. Will the Minister say if it is the intention of the Government to contract the motor industry, and is it his intention, by means of this Order which regulates the allocations which the Government can make to that industry, to shrink it and thus make large numbers of workers redundant? I hope for an answer because, if that is so, as it would appear, then the Minister is deliberately reducing the size; and not only will men be made redundant, but quite clearly it is going to mean that our leading export trade is going to be shrivelled up. That is what will happen with, apparently, the obscure idea that the skill and resources of that industry will be taken up by the armaments industry.
If that be the intention, it is all the more tragic, because it means that we shall not be able to balance our trade since we shall not have the means of sending out the cars and other vehicles which have played so extremely important a part in our export markets in the past. I have said that it is possible that the Government have the idea that men made redundant will be "taken up" in the arms industry. If that is so, one would have thought that the Minister would have made such arrangements that any armaments works engaged on vital defence contracts would have had the materials necessary to absorb the men who become redundant.

Colonel Cyril Banks: The hon. Member must realise that his right hon. Friend the former Minister of Supply at the time of the nationalisation of iron and steel made the statement in this House that in the future there would be less steel available due to the fact that it was not possible to get the imports which we required. That, in effect, was his right hon. Friend's prophecy.

Mr. Edelman: Before answering that point, I would mention an incident, which I have already told to the Parliamentary Secretary, of where a Midlands arms factory, engaged on most critical defence contracts, so far from being in full production, has recently made 15 per cent. of its labour force redundant. The trade unionist who communicated with me said that his factory had been working on rearmament—I will not describe the parti


cular type because I think it would be inappropriate—and that recently they had had redundancy which amounted to a 15 per cent. cut in labour and that they were to work three and a half to four days from now on. He added: "How is it that we who are on re-armament are on short time and have had redundancy?" That is a question which I wish to put to the Minister. How is it that arms works concerned with vital re-armament have not the essential needs to carry on with their essential job?
Last year there was some decline in the overall total of steel. For the most part in the instances I have quoted, and in the motor industry to which I have paid special attention, the preoccupation is primarily with sheet steel. If that is the case, how is it that whereas in 1950 when we had full employment only 1,611,228 tons of steel or sheet steel were produced—that is alloy, non-alloy, uncoated, etc.—in 1951, the year of production which has direct relevance to the current production, the total of sheet steel produced had risen to 1,753,464 tons? That was irrespective of imports.
It does suggest that, in view of the fact that the physical quantity of sheet steel available has risen, something has happened. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us. It is his responsibility. Where is that sheet steel? What is he going to do, by means of this Order, to make sure that that steel goes to the right people in the right quantities? It must have gone somewhere. Has it gone to the black market, or to the grey market? Is it being held in private hoards? Are there stocks, other than Government stocks, taken up by sheet steel? These are urgent questions I put to the Minister; I hope he will give the answer tonight.
Recently the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, who approaches the question with an optimism I find admirable and a buoyancy I fully approve, was in the Midlands and was able to give some promises and make certain forecasts, which I hope with all my heart will be fully justified. I sincerely hope that he will be able to get more steel which he will be able to allocate to all those industries in the Midlands and throughout the country which today are gravely disturbed about maintaining their production because of the lack of materials. But I suspect that his

optimism was based on the anticipation that we would be receiving large quantities of steel from America.
We know that one million tons of steel has been brought from America, together with a substantial amount of ore, but the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister seems to have bought a pig in a poke. No one knows what the steel is, or what its specification may be. Why should the hon. Gentleman, with the approval no doubt of his right hon. Friend, make such optimistic forecasts when he does not know the specifications of the steel we are going to get? Does he mean that the American motor industry is going to cut down the allocation of steel to its own manufacturers? Are they going to deny these cars for their home market so that we shall have steel for our export market? I doubt that very much.
I believe that in the hands of the Minister of Supply and those associated with him the instrument which is before us is a sharp and a dangerous instrument; it should not be in his hands. It is an instrument which he may and, indeed has, used to the detriment of the industry as a whole. I hope, therefore, that unless he can give some answers which will at least give us more information than we have at the moment, my hon. Friends will decide to oppose the Order because of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has bungled the question of the allocation of steel, right from the start.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. R. Jennings: I admire the way this Motion has been moved. I thought that the mover put the case, from the Sheffield point of view, very fairly and very properly. I feel sure that he did not exaggerate his point, as the seconder seemed to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is the truth."] Nevertheless, he tried to convey to the House that the Minister was responsible for a good deal of bungling. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Be that as it may, any bungling in that direction is nothing to the bungling of the last six years.
I feel that this Order places upon the Minister a very grave responsibility. If we look at the First Schedule—at the multiplicity of materials to be controlled, acquired and disposed of by the Minister—we appreciate the great variety of industries which will be affected by what


ever action is taken. In the Second Schedule we have a list of the various Departments that are to authorise the allocation of these materials. I feel it is right and proper for me to raise my voice and tell the Minister that in the City of Sheffield we have a multiplicity of industries. [An HON. MEMBER: "And Birmingham."] This Order will be looked upon by the people running those industries with a feeling that it must be used in the proper way. Allocations must be given with wisdom; with foresight and with courage. There are bound to be complaints in various parts of industry because they are not getting, perhaps, the whole allocation to which they think they are entitled.
I do feel that some of the illustrations given by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) show that there are cases where the Minister must look very carefully into all these points of complaint to see that the administration of the last Government is not followed and that bottlenecks, dislocation and under-employment are not allowed to exist. The grave difficulty that I see is that we must have instilled into the Departments a feeling of urgency and the realisation that what takes place in the Departments will directly affect the employment of the people out in industry. We must have the closest co-operation between one Department and another, and forthright decisions must be made. When complaints are made they must be sympathetically looked into, to see that the Order is being operated in the most expeditious way. I am certain that the Minister appreciates his responsibility, and that those in the Departments are not anxious to create under-employment or unemployment.
I am one of those people who believe that no one but a fool wants to see unemployment. I have said so from that side of the House on many occasions. It is a false charge to suggest that anyone on this side wants to create any bottleneck of unemployment. [Interruption.] I know that it is difficult for hon. Members opposite to have to listen to some of these truths.
I plead with the Minister to use his great judgment and wisdom and to see that in every possible way all decisions are equitable and that every allocation gets its right amount of priority. If

he does this, I am sure that the Order will work efficiently and effectively.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: The hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) revealed an uneasy mind when he referred to bungling. However, we do support his attempt to prod the Minister into conceding that there is a need for urgency. I do not think the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) exaggerated. In his constituency there is, because of the deliberate starving of the motor industry of steel, a measure of unemployment.
It is all very well for the hon. Member to say that no one but a fool believes in a measure of unemployment, but the simple fact is that in the past we have known economic policies which have created the position which is now being created in Coventry and in other parts of the country. The argument of my hon. Friend that there is a danger of a measure of unemployment and under-employment being created is one we must look at.

Mr. Jennings: I was answering the suggestion of the hon. Member, who was putting that forward in substance.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member said he was exaggerating, but I do not think that he was exaggerating the position in Coventry. He tried to demonstrate to the House that because of the policy on allocations a measure of unemployment has been created in the motor industry. I want to deal quickly with two other aspects which have not been mentioned. I refer first to the agricultural industry. I should like to know how this Order will apply to the industry. One section of a speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 29th January has been quoted before. He said,
I turn now to plant, machinery, and vehicles for civil use.
Our objective is to reduce total home deliveries of plant, machinery and vehicles for civil use by £150 million to £200 million at current market prices below the level attained in 1950. The House should know that this severe and unwelcome step means on the average a cut of no less than one-sixth of actual supplies in 1950, and even in that year the supplies which industry and agriculture got fell short of what they would have liked to buy and what is really needed in the long-term interests of our economic progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 57.]


The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the man behind this Order, went on to say that he would like to appeal to industry and agriculture in general to postpone their demands on the engineering industry.
I want to know if it is the deliberate policy of the Government, through this Order, to starve the industry which is concerned with the production of agricultural machinery and implements of supplies of steel for the coming year? If it is, I believe that policy to be stupid and foolish, because if we are to challenge our economic difficulties we must have increased agricultural production. Hon. Members on all sides have accepted that. If we are to have increased agricultural production and even a target, which all parties have agreed to, representing a 50 per cent. increase above the production we had in the 1930's, then agriculture must have the tools to do the job.
If it is the deliberate policy of the Ministry of Supply, for certain reasons which they may argue, to starve the agricultural industry of that supply of steel, then the machine side of the industry will be affected, and that in the end will affect the total figure of agricultural production. I see some hon. Members opposite nodding their heads in agreement. I hope that those who accept that view will get up and say that this industry must not be severely attacked by the present policy of the Ministry of Supply or the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Colonel Banks: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that last year in the motor industry alone the number of motorcars in this country under a Socialist Government was down by 35,000 cars? Surely this started long before this present Government came into office? Why blame this Government?

Mr. Peart: I am not going to accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument in relation to agriculture, because since 1945 it has been the deliberate policy of the Labour Government, and particularly the Ministry of Agriculture, to see that we should allocate a proportion of our steel supplies to the agricultural industry not only for the home but for the export markets. I do not think

his figures actually apply to tractors and combine harvesters.

Colonel Banks: These firms make both agricultural vehicles and motorcars.

Mr. Peart: The hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted figures for motorcars. I do not accept his view. It does not apply to agricultural machinery.
Finally, I want to deal with another Department which is affected by this Order and which is covered by the Second Schedule. I refer again to the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I refer to the position of steel for education. The Chancellor said:
In order to meet difficulties in school building, particularly the shortage of steel, which is affecting the building programme like everything else, the Minister of Education proposes to ask authorities to make more economical use of school premises and to have more flexible arrangements in the age of transfer to secondary schools."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 54.]
Since then, Circular No. 245 dated 4th February, has been issued by the Minister of Education, and it reflects the deliberate policy of the Government to starve school building of steel. I want the Minister to tell me if the Order will continue the policy which was foreshadowed by the Chancellor and has since been confirmed by the Minister in her Circular. The Circular states:
The need for financial economy, the shortage of steel and the temporary overloading of the building industry necessitate a revision of the educational building programme for 1952.
It goes on to say:
The rate of starting new work will depend largely on the speed with which projects under construction are completed and on the outstanding requirements of those projects for steel.
I could quote other parts of the Circular and speeches which have been made recently. I believe that it is accepted by every hon. Member that the Circular reflects—for whatever reasons it can be argued—the deliberate policy of the Government now to reverse the steel allocation policy for school building which was laid down by a Labour Ministry.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Surely there cannot be a very great starvation of the educational programme if we are proceeding to construct places for 400,000 extra children within the present programme?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member should know that there is what is called "a bulge in the school population," and the economy measures foreshadowed in the Circular will force local authorities 18 months or two years from now to acquiesce in what I consider to be a major cut in the school year.
The Government have reversed the policy which was laid down by the previous Government. It has been reported publicly that my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. G. Tomlinson), the former Minister of Education, guaranteed 40,000 tons of steel for school building. I do not know whether that was adequate at the time, but this Government are even cutting down that amount, and this will have very disastrous effects on the educational service.

Mr. Spencer Summers: In pleading for more steel for education and farm equipment, the hon. Member is making it more difficult to meet the claims which his hon. Friends have already made in the debate.

Mr. Peart: All I am asking is that the Government, which has now committed itself to a policy of rationing and fair distribution, should see that each service gets its fair share. I ask that education should have some steel. Education will not now get any steel for the next few weeks. I merely ask that the Minister of Supply should see that education, which is a vital social service and performs an important service in relation to production, as we were told in the debate on manpower, should get its share of steel in relation to production—the supply of technicians and so on—if we are going to win the wider, long-term battle. In present circumstances it is foolish to cut down so drastically on the supply of steel for school building. After all, the amount is small compared with the global quantity of steel used by other industries, and it is negligible when we think of the demands for re-armament.
Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Cabinet colleagues that the present allocation will seriously affect agricultural production and will endanger very much the main fabric of our educational system. I hope my hon.

Friends will protest strongly against the Order and register their opposition.

11.05 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: To hear one or two Opposition speeches one would suppose this Order was being used the victimize certain industries. In fact, this is a serious business for all industries which use steel. There is no user of steel who is not now threatened with a scarcity. Tonight we are really using the language of priorities. Until we know what the Minister's commitments are and what supplies he has to meet them, it is hopeless to tell him what the priorities shall be.
I intervene to submit that none of the priorities mentioned by hon. Gentlemen opposite tonight will in fact be supplied unless one other priority is supplied—our transport system. I refer particularly to our railways. The railways are facing a situation at least as serious as any put forward from the other side. They have cut their locomotive building programme by one half, their wagon building by one third, and have eliminated the building of carriages, which are essential in the priority system of transport.
The wagon situation is by far the most serious. We have 150,000 wagons on the railways today more than 40 years old, a high proportion of which have been breaking down during the last two or three years. Last year—hon. Gentlemen opposite will not confuse this with any responsibility of the present Minister—90,000 hot boxes were experienced by the railways. [Interruption.] I am not going to be led astray. The cost of putting that trouble right runs into a considerable sum. I have some sympathy with the railways in this matter and want, in one respect, to put in a good word for the work that is being done by the Railway Executive under nationalisation. Progress has been made towards a certain amount of standardisation of the rolling stock on our railways. That progress is now made more difficult by the steel situation which today confronts the railways.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: The hon. Member mentioned the figure of 90,000 hot boxes. Is he aware that the large proportion of these were on wagons—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I do not think we can pursue that. This all happened before the Order came into force.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. The Order is related to the allocation of steel to various industries. Steel wagons are not being produced in the numbers that would be produced but for the Order. I respectfully submit that the point raised by the hon. Member, and to which I was referring, is within the scope of the debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think not, because the hot boxes referred to happened before the Order came into force. There is nothing about them in the Order.

Mr. Deedes: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I ventured too wide in referring to hot boxes.

Mr. Manuel: Do I take it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you rule out my interjection while allowing the point to be made by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not stop the hon. Member making the point, but it is not to be pursued because it does not arise.

Mr. Deedes: One of my objects in raising this problem of the railways is to try to induce hon. Members opposite, contrary to some of the speeches they have made, to understand that there is no particular victimisation of any one industry under this or any other Order. All industries are equally in difficulty.

Mr. Mulley: Mr. Mulley rose—

Mr. Deedes: I am sorry—I have given way once.
I want to say a word, still on the subject of railways, about the employment side of the question. There are 80,000 men involved in the construction of railway equipment who are affected by the necessary supplies of steel. Of those, I think, 3,000 alone may be cut down in respect of the carriages which the railways can no longer make. That is a quite serious matter, because once they have left the industry they will find alternative employment, but the railways may not be able to ensure their return to the industry.
There are districts in which men who leave railway works can find alternative

employment in the re-armament or other industries—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are not discussing employment on the Order.

Mr. Deedes: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and say this final word. In respect of the railways, the need for steel, and the effect upon both construction and unemployment, is undeniably as strong as in any of the industries which have been mentioned tonight. I want, however, to follow something that was said by, I think, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) when he mentioned the question of exports and the effect upon the exports of certain industries consequent upon the shortage of steel.
There is one industry—the bicycle industry—which in the last year undoubtedly has made very considerable advances towards lifting the export figures, as exhorted to do by the late Government and by the present Government, and they in particular are feeling a little aggrieved at what may be, and, I think, is, a perfectly fair allocation but is none the less an allocation which makes their achievements in the past 12 months appear rather hollow.
The problem is that those who have stepped up their exports during the past year, in which steel has been free, beyond a point which their allocations 12 months ago made appear to be possible, now find that the steel which is allocated to them not only eliminates home sales—which, I think, we are all agreed may be necessary, and that is accepted—and not only eliminates some exports—that is regretted, but it may be inevitable—but may even cut into our dollar exports. That is a much more serious proposition.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look very carefully at the claims of any firm whose advances in the export trade during the last 12 months, particularly in the dollar market, are such that the terms of the Order, while they may apply quite fairly to all the industries concerned, none the less react unfairly in these very exceptional cases. If that is done, and the case for these industries which have made considerable efforts to push up their exports is fairly reviewed, we shall eliminate one of the main sources of grievance under this Order.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. John Edwards: I will not detain the House for long, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a few questions on one particular aspect of this matter. My hon. Friends and indeed hon. Gentlemen opposite, have already given so much information about the troubles of this scheme that there can be no doubt that there is something wrong with the way in which it is operating at the present time. Therefore, I think it is pertinent to ask the right hon. Gentleman some questions about the way in which the allocation has been made. Is it working well? What is it that is not working well?
I am sure we can be all agreed that what we want more than anything else is that the distribution scheme should be fair. We cannot have any allocation scheme without tears. The mere fact of allocation means there is not enough material to go round. But if we are to ration we must be certain that the claims of the different parties are properly considered, the claims weighed properly, and the allocations then made so that hon. Gentleman and the public generally are sure they are fair.
In the last Government the allocation arrangements were perfectly well known. It was known that there was a Materials Allocation Committee consisting of representatives of all the various Government Departments. It was known that that the Committee had a Ministerial chairman, and it was common knowledge that I was the chairman—at any rate in the last 12 months of the last Government. People wrote to me about the allocations. I can recollect an occasion when an hon. Gentleman, now a member of the present Government, actually brought a delegation from the agricultural machinery makers to see me. That Committee had the job of deciding between the various Departmental claims. If agreement could not be reached, then the Ministers got together and, if finally a settlement could not be made, it had to go to the Cabinet or a Cabinet committee.
To what extent has that machinery been altered? Does the Materials Allocation Committee still exist? Has it got a Ministerial chairman? Is the right hon. Gentleman Ministerial chairman for

the steel allocation? I see the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I am glad because I would regard it as a bad thing if he was. Perhaps we could be told who is the chairman. I have heard—not on any real authority—that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is chairman. Does he settle Departmental allocations? Has he the last word? Does he settle any part of the allocations for Departments? For example, in the right hon. Gentleman's case his Department will have the biggest allocation by far. Have the various industries been given an allocation by the Committee, or the Chancellor of the Duchy, or is it wholly a matter for the right hon. Gentleman to split up this vast global allocation which may have been given to him?
These are questions to which we are entitled to have an answer. If we cannot be told how the allocations are made, there would be no harm to the public interest if we could be told the amount of Departmental allocations.
What I am sure we all want to do is to find a way of allocating a material which is short, and we should be more confident that there was a fair way if the right hon. Gentleman would draw this veil of secrecy which so far has been hiding the actual administrative arrangements and let us know how the thing actually works or, in this case, does not work.
I could myself add to the evidence given by my hon. Friends. What worries me from the evidence I have seen is that there does not seem to be sufficient appreciation of the priority which ought to be granted to exports. We need not argue about the fact that the export drive is pre-eminent in our present circumstances. It seems to me, from such allocations as I have known to individual firms, as it there were an attitude which amounts almost to indifference on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. This really will not do. Unless exports can he given the right priority, unless right throughout the Department there is a recognition that a good exporter is to be encouraged, we shall not overcome our current economic difficulties. I shall be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if he will answer the specific questions I have put to him and give us an


assurance that he is fully seized of the need for priority for the good exporter.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I would not have intervened in this debate but for the lack of perspective in the speeches made by hon. Members opposite. I do not include the speech of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards), because that was directed very much to the point. But I would point out to the House that we are discussing, or have been discussing, the question of the shortage of steel; and the problem underlying their apparent attack on my right hon. Friend is really the problem of the production of steel.
I shall not put myself out of order by saying that the real problem is the question of the nationalisation of steel, but some of the remarks made tonight by hon. Members opposite will come in useful to hon. Members on this side of the House when we come to the steel debates later on.

Mr. Mulley: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the time of his right hon. Friend would be better spent in seeing that this Order worked than in preparing schemes for the de-nationalisation of the steel industry?

Mr. Roberts: I am referring to the arguments from hon. Members on the other side of the House, and I am trying to point out that the arguments, as I have listened to them, have tried to make out that this question of hardship is a result of what my right hon. Friend has done under this Order. Shortages are no new thing. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) knows perfectly well that I was pressing him over a year ago to introduce an Order of this kind, and I am on record to that effect. He also knows that the question of shortages was brought to his attention.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) mentioned agriculture. I can assure him that in Sheffield we have been worried about the question of steel for agriculture for a very long time. It is no new thing, and I want to bring the House back to this question of perspective. If hon. Gentlemen opposite try to make party politics out of this it will react upon them as a very unfavourable boomerang.
We are questioning now the allocation of what steel supplies there are. I am not going out of order by putting the responsibility for the shortage of steel where it should be. I want, however, to remind hon. Members opposite—

Mr. Edelman: Is it not the case that, despite the shortages under a Labour Government, full production and employment was maintained, whereas under the present administration there has been unemployment and under-employment and productivity has fallen?

Mr. Roberts: I think that the hon. Gentleman is usually fair, but in this case he is not. Under the previous Administration we had four large shops in Sheffield closed in the autumn of last year, and there was this question of under-employment going on in Sheffield for quite a while—and in Rotherham, too—and we on this side of the House did not make party political capital out of it. It is not true to say that we tried to do that at the expense of the unfortunate position in which many of our fellow workers found themselves, and I point out to hon. Members opposite that if they try their game it will not pay them in the long run.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) asked questions about the figures for the first quarter's allocation for this year and also mentioned the second quarter. I hope that the Minister will give the full picture, because if he is going to answer the hon. Member and give these figures, then he will also be able to give estimates for the third quarter. I understand that the steel position was very difficult at the beginning of the year—almost chaotic; again a legacy from the previous Administration—but I hope that by the third quarter, and certainly the fourth, this allocation question will be very much fairer and the industries needing the steel most will get it.

Mr. James McInnes: To which industries is the hon. Member referring.

Mr. Roberts: I propose putting my faith in the Minister in order to see that the proper allocations are made, and I hope he will be able to assure us—as, indeed, I am sure all hon. Members hope—that allocations will be on a satisfactory basis by the end of this year.
I come now to a point raised by the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) about American steel. The hon. Gentleman has spoken previous in this House on that subject, and it is really a misconception to claim that, where people create, as they do in this country, a vast variety of steel, we shall not be able to fit into our steel production certain allocations of whatever types of steel we receive from the United States. Personally, I do not think he need be worried about the question of the kinds of steel likely to be imported from the United States, because almost every kind can be used in our steel economy.
There is this last point, raised by several hon. Members, about redundancy and about steel allocations causing unemployment. I would put to the Minister for his consideration that, rather than using allocations to transfer work from one factory to another and necessitating, therefore, possible movement of labour with all the consequent difficulties over housing and other problems, he should use existing works to augment the armaments factories in their present conditions.
That would mean, as during the war, going to various firms at present making things not so useful or so important for the armaments drive and saying, "Here is a list of products required in the national interest; how much can you make?" I suggest that if he does the ingenuity of a great number of those gentlemen is such that they will be able to look through the list and find out what they think they can convert to, and in that way the works will be kept going, the labour will be kept in the works and the allocation of steel will not have to be switched.
It is extraordinary how in innumerable small firms employing 20, 30 or 40 men of great skill they can turn their hands to new ideas. I have noticed that in the past Ministers have tended to use the big bludgeon of allocation to get the production they required for re-armament rather than to use the ingenuity of skilled workers of Sheffield and elsewhere. I suggest to him as a question of policy that he should adopt that method rather than try to change the allocation of steel from one works to another.
Tonight we see the Opposition apparently praying, or so they say, against an Order which they themselves have been supporting in principle for a number of years. It is extraordinary. If they do accept the advice of at least three of their Members and go into the Division Lobby, it will set a precedent of insincerity and inconsistency which it will be hard to beat.

Mr. Mulley: Does the hon. Member not realise that under the procedure of the House one has to put down a Prayer to raise the matter?

Mr. Roberts: It can be raised in other ways if the hon. Gentleman wishes to do it.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I intervene in this debate because I feel that when the noble Lord, my predecessor, reads this debate and of the claims for the motor industry, agriculture and the railways, he will severely castigate me if I do not put in a claim for the shipbuilding industry.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) mentioned priorities in the allocation of steel, and it is with these that I am concerned, because I noticed, on reading the Votes on Account, that the strategic reserves in this country are to be severely run down to the tune of about £100 million. I feel that shipbuilding should have first priority in the coming year, because in that industry we are faced with difficult circumstances due not only to an inadequate allocation of steel but also to the fact that the allocation we are receiving is coming spasmodically. Costs in shipbuilding are being increased because men are severely under-employed.
Sir Murray Stephens, Chairman of Alexander Stephen and Sons, recently said:
We do not know what steel deliveries may be like in two years' time. All that we do know is that deliveries have fallen very far short of the industry's programme—in fact a figure has been mentioned of a shortage of 33 per cent. during recent months.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: Can the hon. Gentleman give the date of that speech? To what period does "recent months" refer?

Mr. Bence: January, 1952—so "previous months" must be November and December. Sir Murray Stephens continues:
If this were to go on, the position would be very serious indeed. It would mean two ships in place of three each year, and the cost would obviously go up also.
It is to be hoped that the strong reasons for giving shipbuilding its full due allocation of steel to meet the needs of its output will prevail and that this vital industry will not be slowed down…A long-term continuance of the present deliveries would be disastrous. Why deliveries are so had just now it is difficult to see, and what one would like to know is where all the steel is going.
They are the words of the Chairman of Alexander Stephen and Sons—one of the biggest shipbuilders on the Clyde.
The cost of shipbuilding is being driven up at a tremendous pace because of the inadequacy of the steel allocation, and this will make it very difficult where firms have to take on long-term ship construction at fixed prices. We are afraid that the delay in delivery and the increasing costs of production due to under-employment of men in the shipping industry may have serious repercussions in a few years' time.
This allocation of steel throughout the country not only means under-employment in the shipping industry but in the engineering industry. The result has been demonstrated by a fall in production of most engineering plants throughout the country in the last few months, and we have the position of rising costs with under-employment of manpower in most engineering industries, the effect of which must be a slowing down of every programme in every field of our economy in respect of the engineering trades.
We are trying to do an awful lot of things, and we shall fall down on every one of them through the faulty allocation of steel. The Government are trying to do too much with too little in too short a time, and I suggest that the Minister should get down to tackling the problem of the allocation of steel to the shipbuilding industry because, with the running down of our resources, as I have mentioned before, it cannot be long before shipping will be our first line of defence. Surely everyone will agree that British-built ships, and Clyde-built ships in particular, would be far more useful in an emergency, with our stocks run down, than some of the prefabricated ships, the

experiences of which in heavy storms we have learned of in the last few months.
I appeal to the Minister to take the advice of an hon. Member opposite and appreciate, when considering priorities, that under present circumstances shipbuilding is a first priority.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I think it would be generally agreed in all parts of the House that my hon. Friends, in raising the matter of this Order for allocating steel, have rendered the House and the country some service, because they have expressed the very deep grievances and the very real concern felt by many people throughout the country about their employment and about the prospects of their works being able to continue and flourish. Nothing could be more important than the ventilation in this House of matters of such great importance, affecting the lives and the livelihood of perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
It is clear from what my hon. Friends have said that they are exceedingly critical of the application of the allocation scheme against which they have put down a Prayer and against which I and my right hon. Friends are also praying this evening. In their speeches they have made it clear—and I make it clear again—that we do not oppose the principle of an allocation scheme or, indeed, this allocation scheme. What we are concerned about is that this scheme should be properly administered. Where mistakes have been found to exist they should be examined and remedied as quickly as possible.
One cannot help making the comment—before asking the question which I have in mind—that this Government, when in Opposition, criticised every form of control over industry and made a great deal of propaganda about the way in which our controls were fettering and hampering the ingenuity and the inventiveness of our people; but the first thing they do when they come in is to adopt a most important and all-embracing control scheme affecting all the basic industries of this country. We are used to their going back on their pre-election programme and policy, and we are almost getting tired of pointing out the many occasions on which they have had to eat their words.
I would like to ask the Minister of Supply a number of questions about this allocation scheme, which arises, as has been said, from the shortage of steel and iron which we hope will be temporary. The basic cause of this shortage was the drying up of the large quantities of scrap which we were getting from Germany. This amounted to about 2 million tons for many years. It suddenly came to an end last year, and it has not yet been replaced in sufficient quantity by any other material.
I would like to ask the Minister whether the allocation scheme we are now discussing is identical with the allocation scheme which was in force up to May, 1950. In the introductory document issued to consumers, it is stated that it is basically the same. Does that mean that it is identical, or does it mean that it has been altered in some particulars? If the latter is the case, we would like to know where alteration has taken place. Or is it the same scheme, with only the amounts of metal allocated to the various consumers changed?
I will preface my next question with the remark that in the opinion of my right hon. Friends who were engaged in the administration of the previous allocation scheme, and in my experience, no allocation scheme, particularly one as big as this one, is perfect. There are bound to be evasions. There is bound to be, in the early stages, a certain amount of unfairness. It is difficult to be sure that everyone is being treated fairly, and that every steel consumer is acting fairly in respect of the amount of steel he is receiving.
It was our experience that many big industrialists under the former scheme were getting more steel than they were entitled to and that they were evading the scheme in spite of every step we took to see that they did not do so. Whole groups of industrial consumers—and I will say openly that the motor industry was one of the worst offenders—were in one way or another getting steel beyond the amount to which they were entitled. They were putting it to good use, it is true, in exporting it; but they were using steel above that allocated to them, with the result that many other important consumers, such as the railways, and perhaps shipbuilding yards, and others who were

entitled to certain quantities to keep their industries going were not getting those quantities. That evasion was unfortunate. We took steps, I think successfully towards the end, to ensure that further evasion did not take place.
I would ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the scheme as now drawn up, and the arrangements which he has with industry, will ensure that no one will get any significant quantity of steel above that to which he is entitled. If one person gets more than he ought to, then someone else goes short. That is contrary to the national interest.
It is inevitable that in the early stages of a scheme of this sort things will go wrong. One does not know what stocks people have, how much some people's production has increased since the basic period. There are bound to be anomalies and difficulties. What we are concerned to ensure is that prompt and effective steps will be taken to rectify mistakes quickly. These cases which my hon. Friends have mentioned appear on the surface to have been grave mistakes made in the early days. They may have been inevitable. I want to know whether they have been remedied or looked into and will be put right without any delay.
I would give a warning to some of my hon. Friends, speaking from some experience. Very often someone comes along—an industrialist—and makes a case from which it would appear that he has been unfairly treated, but on closer examination one finds that he does not make his case. It appears he is not getting anything like the amount of steel he was using the year previously, but although he was getting a proper allocation that year one finds he was using more steel than he was entitled to.
It is necessary to examine carefully cases of unfairness when they are put forward, because it may be that sometimes the industrialist is trying to get more steel than he is entitled to. All cases must be examined carefully whether the people are getting the right amount of steel or not, because on that depends the employment of skilled people who have been years in a particular firm. Every effort must be made to see that they do not suffer from maladministration of Government Departments.
Next I would ask the question: is the machinery such that quick adjustment can be made where it appears that somebody has not been receiving the steel he should have received? Can quick adjustment be made through the regional controller so that the matter does not have to go to headquarters for consideration? It is desirable that as far as possible, although it is not always possible, adjustment should be made locally by the regional controller or the Ministry of Supply who know the local circumstances and requirements of each firm.
I am not sure whether the Minister will want to answer the next question. When he made the allocation to start with, did he keep back a useful amount in reserve to put right any serious cases of under-allocation that might arise? He should have done so, and if he can give us any information I will be grateful.
My next question is whether he can tell us, when he is making his allocations to engineering firms, what are the relative priorities for defence orders and export orders. Sometimes they conflict. Sometimes one cannot give all one wants to firms on defence work or semi-defence work. The same applies to firms employed on export orders, even to dollar markets. Is there any priority system for one or the other? If so, we should know. Or is it the case that defence and export orders to dollar markets get equal priority and neither gives way to the other?
Another point which was touched on by some of my hon. Friends is with regard to the steel allocation for school building and the extent to which an inadequate amount of steel is likely to retard the school programme. At Question Time today a Question was asked about the adequacy of steel for building up blitzed cities. What I am worried about is that the shortage of steel may be used by hon. Members opposite as an excuse for cutting down social services, whereas really a cut may be made for quite different reasons—for economic or Budget reasons, or whatever they may be.
I am fearful that when the cuts take place we shall be told, "We cannot help the cuts because the steel shortage is such that the steel is not available," when the real reason is very much different. I

hope it will not happen. There is no reason why it should happen. It is for the Government to divide up the steel as they think fit between the social services and the many requirements of the railways, shipbuilding and all the other things which have been mentioned.
I now come to my final question. It is important that the House and the country should know what the prospects are for allocating steel under this Order during the second, third and fourth quarters of the year. What is the steel position? Are allocations to be raised substantially during the second, third and fourth quarters, particularly in the last two quarters, as a result of the agreement with the United States? Industry ought to know that.
Are we sure that we shall get the steel which we were told we should get under the agreement with the United States? It has happened in the past that we have made arrangements with the United States Government and, through no fault of the United States Administration, we have not got what we expected to get. I have no reason to believe that that will happen on this occasion, but it will be some assurance to us and to the engineering industry if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us that he is certain that he will get the substantial quantities of steel to which we are entitled under the agreement, and if he does get them, whether he will be able to increase allocations significantly during the latter part of the year and remove some of the grave difficulties about which my hon. Friends have been speaking.
If he can say a further word about the types of steel that we shall get, that will also be of great interest. He has told us in answer to a Question that among the types of steel that we are to get are various categories. Do we yet know what they are? Have we made any agreements or contracts? Are we likely to find that we are getting large quantities of steel which we do not want much or which are exceedingly inconvenient and awkward to feed into our steel industry? Shall we get the surplus that the Americans do not want? Shall we have any say at all in the type of steel that we shall get?
All this is exceedingly important. It is not only the welfare of the engineering industry, the building industry, the rail


ways and the shipbuilding industry and a lot of other industries which depends on the amount of steel which will be available during the coming year, as well as on the fairness with which that steel is allocated. The livelihood of tens of thousands of workers in industry, the welfare of thousands of children who may or may not get schools, and the prosperity of the whole country depend on the quantity of steel that we are likely to get during the course of the year and the fairness with which it is divided among the applicants for it.
If the right hon. Gentleman can satisfy those points, he will have done a considerable service not only to us but to all those interests in the country who are so anxious to know today what their prospects are for steel during the rest of the year.

Mr. Speaker: I ought to point out that it appears to me that the Order is concerned not with the supply of steel or the production of steel, either from our own resources or from abroad, but with its distribution.

Mr. Strauss: I fully accept what you say, Mr. Speaker, but the distribution of steel under the Order will depend in turn on the amount of steel which is available Therefore, I think we are entitled to know, when we are considering what effect the Order will have on industry, how much steel there is likely to be to distribute. Otherwise it would be very difficult to come to a decision as to whether the Order is justified or not and whether we need an Order or could carry on without one.

Mr. Speaker: It may be referred to, but I would point out that, no matter what the supply of steel is, the Order would operate unamended.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I did not intend to intervene, but I realise that this has become a question of priorities. We are asking the Minister of Supply to do the impossible—to give to every industry, every constituency, and the various Members of the constituencies all that they desire to have. There is only a limited amount of steel in the country and the question that gravely concerns us on this side is that it shall be allo

cated fairly and in the best interests of the national economy.
The hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) quite unfairly, and out of order, suggested it was because of nationalisation. Let me tell him that if he would go to his constituency and tell steel workers that, he would get a rude answer.

Mr. P. Roberts: Oh, no! Do not believe it.

Mr. Jones: The facts are that there has been more steel to be allocated since nationalisation than ever before in our history. But we will get down to how much is being produced when we come to the question of who shall control the industry.
We find various Members following one another with claims for priority. My hon. Friend who moved the Prayer suggested sufficient steel for light industries in Sheffield; and my hon. Friend who seconded asked for the "umpteenth" time for alloy, sheet, and tube steels for the cycle and motorcar industry of Coventry; an education expert came forward with a request that schools should be built, which meant section steels; and the agricultural experts want steel for agricultural implements to increase food production. I am surprised we have not got the anti-armament experts here to suggest that if we were not to carry on with re-armament we might be able to find sufficient steel to meet all the various requests.
The House must concern itself with facts. The bare facts are that present production out of the existing capacity—improved during the last five years—has not met the demand of a fully-employed nation, plus the re-armament programme. Therefore, the new Minister has got a plateful in trying to satisfy all the requests made to him. His job is to see that the enormous black market, the wicked grey market, the under-the-counter business, and all the things going on, not only among the small people, shall cease. The ex-Minister of Supply has referred to what we found in the last three or four years.
The motorcar people, particularly in Coventry, are now saying that they are entitled to get sheet steel to achieve a higher production than the figures that they were not entitled to produce, be


cause they got more sheets than they were entitled to.

Mr. Edelman: I recognise the expert knowledge of my hon. Friend on this subject, but he has missed one of the points that I certainly tried to make, particularly in relation to Coventry production. The importance of Coventry is not simply that it is a constituency but it is the place where one of the most important commodities of our export programme is manufactured, and unless that industry gets its steel to enable it to carry on our export programme as a whole and the country will suffer because of our difficulties.

Mr. Jones: I agree with every word of that, but I am pointing out the impracticability of my hon. Friend's suggestions. One cannot put sheet steel into cars and, at the same time, put in into railway wagons. We cannot put the sheet steel into tanks and manganese steel into tank tractors, and, at the same time, put that high quality managanese steel into agricultural tractors. It is impossible to have it both ways.
I agree that if we could divert our present indigenous materials and supplies from our own country into exports and get the dollars to get the food, and forget all about re-armament, that would be all right. But we cannot do that—we must face the facts as they are.
My last word is about the allocation of the steel that is to come from America. I ask the Minister to take particular note of what I say. If he finds, as has been suggested by my right hon. Friend the former Minister, that the proposed supply from America is likely to fall down, I ask him to make certain that in lieu of the semi-finished, finished or ingot steel, we get raw materials.
To buy a million tons of steel from America when our own furnaces are standing idle, and our own people are under-employed on the production side in Sheffield, Rotherham and everywhere else in the industry, is bad business. We should, if possible, get the raw materials, so that we employ our people on them and get the great conversion value from the finished products in this country. It is far better to spend one-third of the money in getting the raw materials than

to spend the total amount involved in getting the semi-finished products which America will unload, and particularly the stuff that they themselves can manage very nicely without.
There is not sufficient steel to meet a fully employed democracy plus a rearmament programme. This means that whatever is done by the Order, somebody, somewhere, will feel hurt. My appeal is that the steel that is available for this country shall be allocated where it can earn the best possible living for our people and where at the same time there will be the least demand upon it for the needs of the re-armament programme, which, after all, is a non-profitable venture.

12.2 a.m.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I am sure that everyone, in all parts of the House, can agree with the broad sentiments, principles and objectives enunciated by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) in the last few sentences of his speech. The problem of steel allocation is to apply those general principles in detail over a vast field, and to very many firms with varied problems.
Without trespassing upon your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I should like, in a very few words, to reply to the last question of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) about the outlook for steel allocations and the prospect of increasing them in the second, third and fourth quarters of the year.
To try to help firms in their planning, we have already issued the allocations for the second quarter. In fact, we got them out within 10 days or a fortnight of the beginning of the first period. There was a very slight increase in the amount of steel allocated in the second quarter.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what were the prospects for importations. There is no doubt that, unless something goes seriously wrong with the arrangements that have been made to obtain additional steel from America, imports of steel will increase substantially in the third and fourth quarters. However, I certainly will not venture to forecast what allocations we can make until I know much more about the prospects of home production, because imports and home production together make the total amount of steel which can be allocated.
I express my thanks to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), for the extremely moderate and constructive way in which he moved the Prayer. The general tenor of the debate has been constructive, helpful and inquiring. It is in that spirit that I propose to reply. There was perhaps one serious exception; that was the speech of the seconder of the Motion, the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), and I will have something to say about his remarks later. I do not propose to spend any time arguing the necessity for steel allocations. I think that is common ground among all Members. I do, however, think it worth while to remind the House of the statement made by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer last June, which marked the beginning of the re-introduction of this scheme.
On 28th June he said in a statement to the House:
In the case of steel, though production is not likely to be seriously below last year's record level, demand is rising. This year's total requirements, including those of defence, are likely to exceed available supplies. The extent of the gap will vary according to the type of steel, and is not likely to exceed 10 per cent. on the average. But if defence requirements and those of the most important civilian users are to be met in full the shortage will be somewhat greater for other users. Sheet steel and tin plate are already subject to allocation; in the circumstances the Government have decided that full allocation schemes must now be prepared for all other types."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 1578.]
Thus an average shortage of 10 per cent. was expected last June. At the same time the former Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated that production in 1951 would approximately be equal to production the year before. In fact the right hon. Gentleman's forecast was somewhat over-optimistic. In 1951 we produced only 15·6 million ingot tons compared with 16·3 million ingot tons the year before. That falling off in production has, of course, only accentuated the steel shortage, and so has increased the necessity and urgency for a rationing scheme.
I have been asked by hon. Gentlemen opposite—and I have also seen the question in newspapers—whether the Government are stockpiling or building up a reserve of steel. I only wish that were so. If we had something up our sleeve

it would certainly make things very much easier, I can assure hon. Gentlemen that we have no steel hidden away at all. They can search me.
The mover of the Motion asked what were the principles upon which our allocation system was based. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) asked in this connection whether we were going ahead on the principle of starving the agricultural industry. The hon. Member for Coventry, North asked whether we were trying to force men out of work. This allocation scheme has no relation to such ideas. It has come into being because of the shortage of steel, and its one and only object is to see that the inadequate supplies available are put to the best possible use in the national interest.
Our policy seeks to achieve, or to help achieve, two fundamental national objectives—military security and financial solvency. Both these objectives are essential for the independence of our country and for the safety and well-being of our people. Translated into terms of steel allocations these broad principles mean priority, and in answering the right hon. Gentleman I would say equal priority, for three things: priority for exports, priority for re-armament and also priority for the basic industries, such as coal mining and electricity, upon which the prospects of expanding the nation's productivity ultimately depend.

Mr. Edelman: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about three priorities. The important question is: How do these priorities stand in relation to each other? Which comes first, and what is the sequence?

Mr. Sandys: I did use the word "equal." Priorities can, of course, only be accorded, as the word implies, at the expense of something else. In this case that can only be home consumption and domestic capital investment. We have, therefore, reluctantly been obliged severely to reduce the allocations of steel to numerous companies who manufactured mainly for the home trade.
In the case of companies with a large overseas trade our aim has been to assure to them sufficient steel to maintain and, if possible, to expand their exports. But I would point this out, because the point was raised in the debate: that it does


not mean that because a company exports a substantial part of its output it is entitled to expect that it will receive enough steel, not only to maintain its exports, but also to keep its home trade at the previous level. There is, consequently, no inconsistency whatever in asking a company to reduce its total consumption of steel and at the same time press it to increase its exports. That is in fact what we are doing in very many cases at the present time.
The application of any system of priorities necessarily involves some changes in the pattern of production. Naturally, we would have preferred to introduce these changes more gradually so as to cause as little disturbance and hardship as possible to the industries and individuals concerned. But, having regard to the critical financial position of the country, we took the view that we just could not afford any delay whatsoever in taking action to expand our exports in the struggle to re-establish the balance of trade and to restore the strength of the pound. I think the House will agree that every single month counts.
That is the general background against which our allocations must be viewed. In the present critical situation I do not believe that any responsible Government of any political complexion could adopt any very different policy from the present one. It is, of course, possible for the party opposite to agree that the policy is right, but, as did the right hon. Member for Vauxhall in very mild terms, to inquire whether the administration and execution of that policy might be at fault.
I therefore turn to the question of administration. The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) asked about Government machinery; in view of his experience, he is certainly in a position to express a worth while opinion on this. I would say to him that, without knowing precisely what were the arrangements under the late Government, from his description they seem to have been the same as at present. They are very simple. There is a Materials Allocations Committee of officials with a Minister as chairman; that Committee reports to a committee of Ministers which lays down the broad principles to be followed.
The Ministerial committee also has the task of dividing the total amount of steel available among the various Government Departments in proportion to the needs of the industries they sponsor. The priorities and the main allocations having been settled in this way, each Department sub-divides the slice allotted to it among the firms for which it is responsible.

Mr. J. Edwards: Could the Minister tell the House if the Chancellor of the Duchy is chairman of the Materials Allocations Committee?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think that it is normal practice to mention which Ministers are members of Cabinet or other Government committees.

Mr. Edwards: But in evidence before the Public Accounts Committee last year there was a long description of a whole lot of machinery, in which I was named as chairman. Secondly, when we debated the setting up of the Ministry of Materials, the whole matter was made plain. This is not a Cabinet committee, and facts about it used to be made known until the Minister and his right hon. Friends came to office.

Mr. Sandys: It is a well-established principle that the names of Ministers who are chairmen or members of Government committees are not made public, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question on the subject; though it makes no difference to the general arrangements which I am explaining to the House.
Hon. Members will not expect me, although I have been asked about a great number of industries and firms, to state the allocations made either to particular industries or firms. However, without going into figures, I should like to say something about one industry which was mentioned a lot tonight, and whose difficulties seem to have given rise to the wildest and, if I may say so, most irresponsible accusations against the Government. The hon. Member for Coventry, North, stated that short time working and redundancy in the motor industry were due, so far as I could make out, to my "bungling"; so he will not mind if I dwell rather longer on that subject than I would otherwise have done.
I am well aware of the difficulties of the motor industry; I am in close and constant touch with it on the subjects the hon. Member has mentioned. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) pointed out, this is not a new problem. These difficulties in the motor industry are not new and it is no use hon. Members opposite trying to pretend that the shortage of steel and the redundancy of workers in the motor industry, started on 4th February last, when the Order came into force.

Mr. Edelman: My claim is simply this, that today redundancy, unemployment and under-employment is greater than it has been at any time during the last six years.

Mr. Sandys: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said. I took down his words. He said "Is it not a fact that under the Labour Government there was full employment? Now there is under-employment and redundancy." That is a different thing.
These difficulties in the motor industry are of long standing. For a long time motorcar manufacturers have been short of steel. For a long time there has been short-time working in that industry, and, on and off, for a long time there have been large-scale dismissals from the industry. Does the hon. Gentleman deny that?

Mr. Edelman: Yes, I do.

Mr. Sandys: Then I would like to refer him to a Question which he put in this House on 22nd February, 1949. The hon. Gentleman asked the then Minister of Labour
What action he is taking to secure the reemployment of 300 workers declared redundant at short notice by Messrs. Daimler Limited; Coventry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd Feb. 1949; Vol. 461, c. 265.]
Again, on 29th January. 1951, he asked the then Minister of Supply to
bear in mind that there is already redundancy of men and machines in the Coventry area due to the shortage of steel."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 553.]

Mr. Edelman: The fact is that when I asked that Question the then Minister of Supply took action, and the 300 men who had been declared redundant were promptly restored to employment. That

is what I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to do now.

Mr. Sandys: I have another here. On 20th March, 1951, the hon. Gentleman asked the then Minister of Supply
Whether his attention has been drawn to the notice of dismissal from their employment to several hundreds of workers in the motor industry owing to a shortage of sheet steel.
This is the reply he received from the then Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman):
Yes, Every effort is being made to obtain sheet steel from abroad, but I am afraid that some reduction of supplies to the motor industry cannot be avoided until home production increases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1951 Vol. 485, c. 271.]
This does not suggest that they were immediately reinstated.

Mr. Edelman: The right hon. Gentleman has taken the trouble to assemble all this evidence simply to prove that I am concerned about the possibility of redundancy in my own constituency. My charge against him is that, unlike the former Minister of Supply, he has not shown energy and competence in seeing that the men are absorbed.

Mr. Sandys: My charge against the hon. Gentleman is that he, knowing the facts, is trying, not to mislead the House—because he will not do that—but to go around the country making accusations which he knows are baseless.
He asks me whether it is our policy to contract the motor industry. My reply is that we are, in similar circumstances, pursuing towards the motor industry exactly the same policy as that pursued by the Labour Government. The general problem which confronted them, and still confronts us, was set out fairly in the Economic Survey for 1951 presented to this House by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer last April. I would like to read a short extract from it:
The production of motor vehicles has been increasing rapidly in the past few years, but this expansion has been checked by raw material shortages. Supplies of sheet steel had to be reduced in the first quarter of this year to 15 per cent. below the level of the last quarter of 1950, mainly as a result of a reduction in supplies from the United States. Short-time working has become necessary, and home supplies of civilian vehicles are being curtailed in order to maintain exports. The allocation of new cars to the home market has


therefore been reduced from 110,000 in 1950 to 80,000 in 1951, and there is to be a corresponding fall in home supplies of commercial vehicles from 105,000 to 80,000.
That sets out the position and the policy of the late Government. The conditions now are the same and so is the policy which we are pursuing. That statement was followed up by a warning to the industry that even this home quota of 80,000 cars might have to be even further reduced.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Mr. Roy Jenkins (Birmingham, Stechford) rose—

Mr. Sandys: I am sorry, I cannot give way. I have given way a good deal.
As the House knows, my right hon. Friend, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, explained to the House the other day that we had reluctantly felt obliged to ask the motor industry to reduce the home quota in 1952 to 60,000 motor cars and 60,000 commercial vehicles. Provided that this home quota is not exceeded, we hope to be able to assure to the motor industry sufficient steel to maintain their present level of exports. Furthermore, if the state of overseas markets justifies the hope that increased sales are possible, we shall certainly try to increase further the allocation of steel to the motor industry for that purpose.
In view of the complexity of the problem of steel allocation—and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall for having very generously recognised the difficulties of this scheme, which he knows so well from his own experience—it was obvious that there would be initial difficulties in introducing it. It was, from the start, inevitable that the first allocations we made would require considerable revisions and adjustments. There are several reasons for this, apart from the ones that have been mentioned this evening.
In the first place no adequate statistics had been built up during the past two years upon which our allocations could be based. We were mainly dependent—as the party opposite would have been had it still been in office—upon the statistics of allocations and deliveries for the first part of 1950, that is to say, the last period during which a full-scale steel allocation was in force.
The mover of the Prayer this evening said that the 1950 figures were not a sound basis. We agree with him; but those were the only figures which we had. It is true that the 1950 figures cannot reflect the considerable changes in the pattern of production and the expansions in many industries which have occurred since then. We have, naturally, done our best in making allocations to adjust for the changes which we know to have taken place in the interval.

Mr. J. Edwards: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was working on figures no later than 1950; that he had no later material. Is it not true, in fact, that the Ministry of Supply was in possession of quite full returns for a much later date, in anticipation of the introduction of the new scheme?

Mr. Sandys: The last substantial body of figures on which we could work was that for the 1950 allocation. This is not a party matter. The preparation of this allocation scheme was already well advanced when the change of Government took place. We took over the figures, the policy and all the difficulties which went with them. We have had other figures since then, on which we based adjustments, but the basic figures were those for the last period of the former allocation scheme.
Even those 1950 figures were unreliable and incomplete. The figures were incomplete because they related to whole industries, and even to groups of industries and were not broken down to show deliveries to individual firms. They were also unreliable for a reason mentioned by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss)—and that is that, in its closing months, the old scheme was not very strictly enforced, and considerable evasions took place. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the motor industry was particularly successful in supplementing its allocations by unauthorised purchases, which, naturally, were not included in the statistics on which we had to work. The fact that the statistics could not include unauthorised purchases is one of the reasons why the motor industry received a smaller allocation in the first period of this year than it would have received if we had known its real consumption. As far as we can, we have


adjusted this for the second quarter the year.
Another factor which has complicated the issue has been the running-down of stocks. Numerous manufacturers have told us that, owing to the difficulty of obtaining steel, they dipped heavily into their stocks last year. That meant that they were consuming steel at a rate substantially in excess of the rate of current deliveries. Since total deliveries for the first half of this year are, by and large, much the same as in 1951, the House will understand that companies which have been drawing heavily upon their stocks and are no longer able to do so will, to that extent, be obliged to reduce their output—quite apart from the effect of the allocation scheme.
Many figures have been quoted of the allocations of different firms, and there has been comment upon the nonsense which they are alleged to make. All I would ask is that hon. Members should treat these figures with great caution. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall was good enough to say that the figures which are given by firms are not always reliable. In fact, one of the serious complications has been an almost universal tendency for firms to overstate their requirements.
The total amount of steel applied for is about 40 per cent. more than the rate of consumption in 1951. It is obvious, therefore, that these figures cannot be accepted at their face value and the difficulty which faced us was to know how much we should, discount the figures of individual firms.
The adjustment of the figures necessitated numerous discussions between the various Government Departments and representatives of industries and companies. As a result, we have made corrections and adjustments to the allocations of the first period which are reflected in the allocations for the second quarter. I do not claim, and it would be absurd to do so, that even the allocations for the second quarter are anything approaching perfect. There are still, no doubt, cases—although I hope they are much fewer—of companies not receiving as large a share of the steel available

as their contribution to the national economy perhaps justifies.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the Minister make some reference to the particular position of the shipbuilding industry which has particular importance for the export trade?

Mr. Sandys: So many different industries have been mentioned that I do not think I can go into them all.
That is one for which I am not responsible and I would not like to make a detailed statement about it. If I did so I would have to deal with bicycles, agriculture, railways and all the others. I only mentioned the motor car industry because I was directly attacked on it. We shall continue to examine carefully all representations which may be made by firms which feel that they have not had an equitable allocation and we shall certainly do our utmost to rectify any injustices which may become apparent.
I would, however, ask the House to recognise that no system of steel rationing, however excellently devised or efficiently administered, can be anything but unsatisfactory. The fact that rationing is necessary implies that there is not enough steel to go round and no amount of juggling with figures is going to alter the position. The only real remedy is to increase the supply of steel. I can assure the House that the Government is doing everything in its power to tackle this urgent problem at its source.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn) rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. E. Fernyhough: On a point of order. If, after a debate of two and a half hours, the Government are trying to gag the Opposition, then it should be understood that some of us will act as irresponsibly in this Parliament as Members opposite did in the last by putting down Prayers every night.

Question put accordingly, and negatived.

TELEPHONE SERVICE, ENFIELD

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

12.40 a.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I rise to draw attention to the Enfield telephone service. I do so because I was shocked at the reply which I received from the Assistant Postmaster-General on 20th February when I asked him how soon the manual exchange in Enfield would be converted to automatic working. His reply shattered all hopes that there was to be an early conversion of the exchange. This was a terrible blow to the citizens of Enfield, an important industrial community.
Enfield has a population of some 110,000, and it is served by four exchanges, the Howard and Laburnum Exchanges, which are automatic, the Enfield Exchange, which is manual and serves the majority of the telephone subscribers in the area, and also the Waltham Cross Exchange, which serves a number of residents in the northeastern section of the community. Nearly 2,000 applicants for telephones have not yet been satisfied. Many of them applied as early as 1946.
There is a long history of the inquiry into the possibility of the Enfield Exchange being converted from manual to automatic working. I first raised the matter in the House on 24th January, 1946, when I was told that, before automatic equipment could be installed, the exchange building needed to be enlarged. It was added that there was spare capacity and that it was too early to say when installation could be undertaken.
I gave the Assistant Postmaster-General nine months before I made a further inquiry, and I was then told that the conversion of the Enfield Exchange to automatic working was dependent on a major extension of the building and that it was proposed to start the work in 1948. I pressed the Assistant Postmaster-General, and he said that automatic working would be put into operation when the spare capacity at Enfield had been used up.
I patiently waited until 1948, by which time I understood that further action was to be taken, and on 11th February of

that year I again put a Question and I was told that the existing manual exchange had to be enlarged, that it was no longer possible to convert to automatic working on the same site and that a building on another site would be required, and that it was not then possible to say when the new scheme was likely to mature.
That was the first time we had heard of the necessity for a new building. The scheme had apparently then been postponed further, and in the meantime the manual exchange was coping with a certain proportion of the applicants although a very large number was left unsatisfied.
In March, 1949, I was told that the extension of the existing building and the switching equipment would be completed late in 1950, that this extension should meet development for some years, and that it was too early to say when the exchange was likely to be converted to automatic working.
The then Assistant Postmaster-General gave an assurance that the work of extending the manual exchange would be done as expeditiously as possible. That was three years ago. There are still nearly 2,000 persons in Enfield waiting for telephones, the manual exchange is still operating, and no action has been taken towards the erection of the automatic exchange.
I ask why there was this change of plan; why, after it had been decided to convert the manual exchange to automatic working and it was considered this would take place within the existing building, it was decided that the capacity of the manual exchange was inadequate and that a fresh building needed to be erected; why there was delay in obtaining the necessary site; and why there was further delay and no action taken apart from the allocation of the site?
Enfield is an expanding industrial area and some foresight could have been exercised. It would have been better to proceed with the conversion of the old manual exchange, with its out-of-date equipment. It is true that thereby certain applicants may have been kept waiting somewhat longer, but they would have understood the position and, in the long run, they would have been better off. It was waste to install old, out-of-date


equipment at that time—a waste of materials and, to a certain extent, of manpower.
I would further ask why it is that a priority that appeared to be conceded in earlier days, when I asked Questions, has been pushed aside and other exchanges that were manually operated have been converted to automatic before Enfield. I find it difficult to believe that there are more important communities which are making greater contributions to production.
All manual exchanges are slow and have their disadvantages. That cannot be helped. The calls from outside queue up until operators are able to cope with them. In Enfield the average time taken to connect subscribers is about 11 seconds, and incoming calls take about 17 seconds on an average. The target with manual operation is about five seconds and I regret that it has been impossible to improve the speed of connection at Enfield.
I visited the Enfield Exchange and I want to make no criticism against the staff, who are operating efficiently and willingly under an able manager and chief supervisor. Within the limitations they are doing their best, but the time has come when some action should be taken and there should be a conversion of the exchange.
I know that the Assistant Postmaster-General will probably blame his predecessor and say that it is not his fault. That does not interest me. I want to know whether he will look at the matter afresh, consider Enfield's requirements, give an assurance that the highest priority will now be given, and that Enfield will be the next on the list for conversion.
I demand this because of the growth of the inconveniences which the business community in Enfield is experiencing. I have a large postbag from business people and people engaged in public service who are waiting for telephones. I do not want to burden the Minister with them now, but I propose to send them to him and I know that he will give me the answers where it is possible to do so.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to have another look at this matter to see

whether rather than continuing the extension of the manual exchange he can give some indication that when the work now in hand is completed, immediately the erection of an automatic exchange will proceed.

12.52 a.m.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) for curtailing his speech so that I might make it clear that in this matter East and West in Enfield meet. Despite our political differences, we are at one in pressing on the Minister, again of whatever Government, the importance of the essential needs of the thriving community of Enfield.
It was proper that the hon. Member for Enfield, East, who represents more the business interests, should press on the Minister the inconvenience which results to business men from the inadequate telephone system. I would sketch in the less obvious effects of denying fully adequate facilities to such an important district.
Much of Enfield, West, is a dormitory area for London. The pull of London is very strong. We have seen the bad results that come from out-county planning of London and other great areas in which inadequate amenities are provided for those living there. There is nothing more hampering to a sense of community life than bad internal communications. I would illustrate this by two letters from the number I have received. The writers of these two letters live within four doors of each other. The first states:
I have given up some of my voluntary work, and I am afraid some of the other will have to go, too. I think it really annoying that as chairman of the Savings Committee of England's largest urban district"—
it is actually the second largest—
I cannot be put on the telephone. I am still on the Youth Employment Committee and the Enfield Employment Committee, but have given up my work on the Education Committee.
It needs no imagination to realise the loss there is to the country particularly in view of his position with regard to the Savings Movement from this man not being on the telephone. The second letter is from the President and Secretary of the Enfield Schools' Music Association, who is also the President of the local


branch of the N.U.T. But he does not base his argument on those facts. He says:
The situation is fast becoming dangerous in this area. Should any emergency occur in this street—or in any particular house—it is about half a mile to the nearest call box. Woe betide us if fire or sickness should overtake us in the night.
Those two illustrations which I have given come, not as one might expect from reading them, from some remote rural area, but from a place in the middle of a very populous and thriving urban district. After this debate I should like to give these letters to the Minister so that he may regard very particularly the position of this road, Burnham Close, in West Enfield, to which I have drawn attention before.
When I raised these matters with the previous Minister I was always greeted with great sympathy and I am certain I shall receive the same sympathy from the present Assistant Postmaster-General I know very well that the difficulties of capital investment must affect what the Minister says to us tonight, but I ask him to consider that there is a very serious brake, as the hon. Member for Enfield, East, has illustrated on the life and leisure of the residents in one of the most important towns in England.
I cannot but believe that a certain amount of money spent here would have very great results in productivity in one of the really vital areas in our export trade, and more particularly the re-armament industry. I should like the Minister tonight to hold out some real hope that the manual exchange will be abolished as soon as may be, and also that he will be prepared to look with as much sympathy as he can at the special cases that the hon. Gentleman and myself will bring to his notice.

12.56 a.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): Before I try to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) I should like to correct him on a small point. I do not propose to blame my predecessor for the present state of affairs. If anyone or anything is to blame it is a whole series of circumstances which distressed my predecessor as much as it distresses me.
Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain

MacLeod) have made speeches which might well have been made by any hon. Gentleman representing a constituency in Greater London. I might have made such a speech myself, because I represent a constituency which also has a manual exchange, and also has a very large waiting list. That is why I have every sympathy with both hon. Gentlemen, and I only wish I could give a more encouraging reply than I am able to make.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East raised two points. He wanted to know, quite rightly, when the Enfield Telephone Exchange will be converted to automatic working. Secondly, he wanted to know what the Post Office are doing to reduce the long waiting list of applications. I can only say to him on the automatic conversion that it is not going to happen in the near future, and so long as the re-armament drive goes on at its present intensity I see no chance whatever of that exchange being converted. I am sorry to have to say all this.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I am sorry to hear it.

Mr. Gammans: But I am sure he would prefer me to be blunt and honest about it, rather than pretend it is going to happen—when I know it is not—in the near future. Before conversion can take place a new building is required, and so long as the ban remains on new buildings except for housing I am afraid that new telephone exchanges are going to come low on the list.
I do not know whether the House realises what has to be done before one can convert a manual exchange to an automatic exchange. I did not realise it myself until I went to the Post Office. It is a most complicated operation, and, incidently, very costly. To convert the Enfield Exchange would cost about £350,000, and even if we were now in a position to start work on the site by erecting the building itself it would be at least four years before the exchange could be finished and the equipment manufactured and installed.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, what is happening in Enfield is that the site of the manual exchange, which was going to be used for the new automatic ex


change, is not now available. He asked whether there had been any change of plan. There has been no change of plan in the sense that there has been no change of plan against conversion to an automatic exchange, but that particular site has been used to extend the manual exchange because of the demand by the local authorities and by the hon. Gentleman himself for more people to be put on the telephone. I would not like him to think that Enfield had been badly treated.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the priority has been lost. The priority has not been lost. Of the 12 exchanges in the Greater London area which are still on manual working, the Enfield Exchange was opened in 1925. The programme for early conversion includes only two exchanges which were opened later than that. Those two exchanges are in the fortunate position of having buildings available into which the new equipment can be fitted.
In some instances, of which Willesden is an example, no date has been fixed for conversion, although the Willesden Exchange was opened 15 years before the Enfield Exchange. I hope, therefore that the two hon. Members, when they convey this unsatisfactory news to their constituents, will make it quite clear that there certainly has been no differentiation against them and that no priorities have been lost.
I hope that the hon. Member for Enfield, East, will admit that, however disappointing this news may be, the Post Office have done their very best to accommodate him and his constituents on the existing manual exchange. Perhaps I may give some figures. Two years ago, there were over 3,000 applicants—3,116 to be precise—on the waiting list A year ago, that number had hardly come down at all and stood at 3,067. Now, it has come down to 1,871, which means a reduction of 1,200 in one year.
We plan to increase the capacity of the exchange by 1,600 lines and the new equipment to give this capacity will be installed at the rate of 200 lines a month. I hope that this will deal with some of the particular cases to which my hon. Friend has referred.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East, mentioned that recently he paid a visit to the exchange. I hope that he will keep in touch with the Telephone Manager, and I extend the same invitation to my hon. Friend, who also represents an Enfield constituency. I am sure both hon. Members will agree that within the limitations that are placed upon us, everything is done by the staff in Enfield to give the public a really good service. The time of waiting for a call, which the hon. Member for Enfield, East, mentioned, compares very favourably indeed with any of the other 12 manual exchanges in the Greater London area, both by day and also by night.
I am sure that I have not given either of the hon. Members the reply for which they hoped. They would like to know when we can convert the exchange to automatic working. Their guess is as good as mine. It does not depend on any unwillingness on the part of the Post Office to undertake the work, or on any lack of desire to do so. We want to get rid of these manual exchanges as quickly as we can. If the hon. Members can tell me when the country will be in a position once more to go back to large-scale civilian capital development, I could tell them when we can begin on the exchange at Enfield.
One thing I can promise is that as soon as we are in a position to do that, very high priority will be given, not only to Enfield, but to similar exchanges in London which are working manually and which we hope to convert to automatic working.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman estimate that the 1,871 applicants for new telephones will be satisfied within the current year?

Mr. Gammans: I would not like to say that. Merely because we increase the number of lines available does not, curiously enough, mean that the same number of people can be put on the telephone.
We have to consider not only the vacancies, as it were, at the exchange, but also the cable equipment between the subscriber and the exchange. What I think we can certainly do is by the end of this year to meet at least 800 applications for telephones in Enfield. If it is possible to go faster than that, we shall


do so. I should like both hon. Members to realise that if we are able to do that by the end of the year, their constituents in Enfield will be in a very much better position, and the waiting list will be very much smaller, than that of almost any other constituency in Greater London.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: When my hon. Friend talks about the 1,600 additional lines being available, could he tell us in what period of time that will be?

Mr. Gammans: That is the additional places, as it were, in the exchange, and they will, I hope, be ready this year, but that does not mean, necessarily, that we can at once put 1,600 additional subscribers on the telephone.

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes past One o'Clock a.m.